MNBrew

For those of you totally convinced a Lucroy trade needs to happen, which statement more accurately reflects your perspective? A) Trade Lucroy NOW no matter what, even if the best return they can get is not really what you think he should be worth. B) Trade Lucroy only if/when it nets a return of talent commensurate with his value. I ask because many folks' posts seem to advocate the first part of A and don't seem to consider the possibility of the 2nd half of A as a hindrance to a deal. But what if that combination (the entirety of A) is the only scenario presenting itself? Some of you love to rag on TH regardless of what he says. Sometimes what a reporter puts forth -- which some of you are taking to be his opinion -- is a translation of comments he can't report or quote directly but which are what his/her sources point to as the likely scenario. Personally I don't want to see Lucroy traded in spite of the rebuild situation, but I'm very aware it's a possibility. . . . . I'm also not sold on the likelihood that the total tear-down approach is the Brewers' absolute best option given that at least 3 other teams seem to be in the exact same position (Reds, Braves, Phillies) and the more teams there are taking that approach, the less likely any one individual team will achieve the desired outcome. . . . Personally I'm also skeptical of the long-term sustainability of the Cubs/Astros approach. The Cubs now have basically abandoned that since they're now spending huge money left and right, and the Astros only barely made the playoffs, made several prospects-for-vets deals at the deadlines, and there's no guarantee they're headed toward a better 2016 than their 2015. I like what the Brewers have done thus far -- I think it's what they've needed to do -- but I'd still rather that Stearns' vision is uniquely his own, not a total copycat like many here essentially advocate, and the Brewers' approach over the next few years becomes the model that many other teams hope to follow.

Thank you, from a brewers prospective, i think New Orleans would make the most sense. Miami has a bottom 5 system, plus its a former brewers affiliate. Close to Biloxi and Brevard County. EDIT: I can't see Toledo leaving detroit no matter what. It would be as shocking as Wisconsin leaving the brewers as an affiliate. I agree, and maybe it's not the same because of how the relationship with the current A-ball team has been nurtured, but it wasn't that long ago that Beloit left the Brewers (or vice versa), so it's not a completely absurd possibility.

Huge for what, at best a 75 win team? He's not getting any younger and skills will diminish rapidly every day over 30. Pair that with concussions and now is the time to move him if we want to get a good return. Even waiting 1/2 way through the season could be a bust if he's not hitting well again (I know what his last couple months stats were). Huge for the organization since he is the best trade chip and chance at a top prospect. Thinking about the 75 win team is short sighted and certainly not the focus of DS. It seems you're assuming that Stearns' priorities should be what you're projecting yours to be, and that there are quality offers out there for Lucroy. Lots of trade talk on Lucroy doesn't mean there are any worthy offers, and it would be utterly foolish for Stearns to take a sub-standard return at any point just because it's the best offer currently out there.

As well he should!

Liking the Expos karma. Hopefully the start playing again (somehow - relocation or expansion) and Tim Raines gets to join his teammate Andre Dawson in the HOF today.

I think it's pretty clear Stearns is tending to both the upper & lower minors at once, all while picking up some low-risk one-time prospects who have a chance at the big-league roster this spring, an approach which makes the most sense to me. I'd be far more concerned if he were focusing primarily on only one particular level or age. I like the idea of a Davis trade a lot, and sooner vs. later, but there are still 1.5 months left before spring training and most of the biggest-name FA outfielders are still on the market. To me that translates to "no rush and no have-to," which allows the Brewers to be patient and wait for the best deal when it comes along. He's got a single very-plus tool (power hitting) which other teams will covet, which, along with low enough service time, would seem to give us a chance at a pretty solid return.

I don't expect much out of EY jr. but I don't have any problem with the signing. I agree w/ Monty's logic above, and overall I really like what I'm seeing in Stearns' moves: viable/tradeable parts have been moved, including at least one unexpected one (Jason Rogers); the talent base has been broadened & elevated considerably; and his moves are bringing in either serious talent and potential "finds" at all levels of the minors up to the fringe of the MLB active roster. Much has been made earlier in this thread -- and in many others -- about the Cubs/Astros model, and any sniff of a winning record going down the tubes for several years as the way to build (i.e., "total teardown"). There have been many questions as to the logic behind several of Stearns' moves this winter -- most ironic, it seems, when he seems to be taking the Brewers down the exact path many were clamoring for since August 2014. To me, what I'm hoping for in Stearns and his vision is NOT following the Cubs/Astros model. The more copy-catting that goes on, the less likely any single team will succeed by following the "hot" model. Rather, I'm hoping Stearns' vision and its implementation and the results end up with the Brewers becoming the model other teams strive follow.

I respectfully disagree. He was a good guy, a decent bench player, and far more productive on at least some positive/constructive offensive level than most Brewers' bench inhabitants over the past decade (not that that says much about the quality of the bench guys, but on the whole he was still better than at least 2/3 of the other guys in his role).

Not picking on you personally for this but I honestly don't get this line of thinking for a couple reasons. The first is I don't think the division is going to remain as great as it was last season over the next few seasons. Just because those three teams were good last season doesn't make them a lock to be good for the next three or so. The Pirates are about to hit the same situation the 2011 Brewers did. Their core of players are going to get expensive, Burnett is gone and Liriano isn't exactly young nor durable. The Cards have lost a few players and their core is getting old. Even the Cubs, who look to be the class of the division going forward may not get much, if any, better than they were last season. They stayed remarkably healthy and all of their young players played up to their potential. That rarely lasts over a three year period. They will have their Rickie Weeks and Cory Hart's as well. Odds are each team will have their version of Ryan Braun's thumb, Cory Hart's and Mat Gamel's knees. They will all also have some guys who just never put together consistent, year to year, high level production. They too will have their versions of JJ Hardy and Rickie Weeks. The Cubs already did with Starlin Castro. Going deeper into that a couple season's ago they had an embarrassment of riches at shortstop in the minors. The farm was so full of them nobody was sure what they would do with them all. This winter they had to go out and buy an older free agent to play shortstop. Things change far too quickly to predicate building your team on how other teams look today. The second problem with building your team based on when the division might get weaker is it's the wrong thing to focus on. Given the predictability problems I stated above it seems silly to target players to be ready at some time when the division might not be as good. If we are going to do that why not just strive to put out 85 win teams and hope for that to be enough in five years? If we are building a team that is good enough to win championships then there is no need to worry about how good other teams in the division are. There will always be a great team that we need to beat if we are to win it all. It doesn't matter one hill of beans if that team is in our division or not. You don't win championships by trying to avoid teams when they are good because there will always be good teams. The key is being good yourself. ^^THIS. You can't control other teams, only your own. Do what's right for yourself, try to be as wise as you can be about it, and let the chips fall where they may. A couple years ago the Reds were a dominant team. Everyone figured they were top competition for our Brewers if not a serious obstacle. They won the division and were looking good. Then the next year the bottom fell out, mainly due to injuries, and the Reds were largely not playoff contenders (2011, I believe). The next year they were still seen as a top threat, had a decent year but weren't top-feeders, and basically have been crud ever since. . . . . By the logic some people here use, we should've tailored our processes around the Reds. My thoughts at the time mirror how I feel about the Cardinals, Cubs, & Pirates now: Don't worry about them, rather do things the right way for where we're at, do what we need to do, and take the right steps so we become a team that makes their seasons tougher and so hopefully our processes affect their actions rather than the reverse.

1) Unless you're comparing the Brewers to the huge-market teams on the coasts or in Chicago, Texas, or St. Louis, the Brewers DON'T have limited resources. The notion that the Brewers are suddenly on a restricted budget and have to have a low payroll is wrong: The lower payroll is a by-product OF trading veterans, not the '90s-Brewers-esque reason FOR trading veterans. It's the same flawed logic as the faulty assumption that the Brewers need to trade the remaining players with substantial multi-year deals. 2) To the notion someone else suggested (like many others also have) that you're always better off letting your prospects get any MLB ABs over a vet/journeyman, I think it bears mentioning the general reminder that not every prospect proves to be MLB-ready and to continue to force-feed MLB playing time on someone who's not ready yet risks doing more long-term harm than good. . . . .Yeah, like many here, I love the turnover and the transactions and the promise of "what might soon be" in terms of prospects getting their MLB chance. But you have to have viable back-up plans, too, and failure to properly protect/develop your prospects in their finishing stages is simply unacceptable.

It's pretty obvious Stearns is as willing to drop fringe-40-man guys as readily as he'll pick 'em up. This is a huge contrast to Doug Melvin's approach, which obviously has the majority of regulars on this board well-conditioned (thanks, Dr. Pavlov) after 12-13-whatever years. That's not necessarily good or bad, but it surely is very different! It sure seems -- and Haudricourt's tweets this afternoon corroborate -- that these moves are most likely for AAA depth.

I don't normally find myself thinking like you, MrTPlush, but I, too, think it's pretty obvious these 3 guys are ST competition and injury-contingency depth at best, and most likely were picked up to help fill out the AAA roster. Pinto was a strong hitter coming up with the Twins and at first only got sent down because of his defense. Then he slumped one year and was mostly injured in 2015. I think the hope is that his bat might come back around and he's a safer 1st-catcher-up possibility than Pina or Garcia at least in terms of having a chance to make any kind of impact with his bat.

I agree that there are different ways to build a team but I'd be curious to know how often a WS winner "got hot" late in the year. My uneducated guess is they were usually pretty good the whole year. EDIT: Checked on the Royals from last year. They were 11 - 17 in September. Giants in 2014 were 13 - 12 in Sept. Be interested to see how that compares historically. The Cardinals of 2011 are the perfect example of a team getting hot late. They ONLY made the playoffs by the skin of their teeth because of an epic run of their own AND an epic collapse by Atlanta. Then they laid waste to everyone in the playoffs and won the WS.

Similarly to WTP's remark, I think it's anywhere from odd to ridiculous to maddening just how determined some folks seem to have become that, because of the past (incidents of 3-4 years ago now) and because we're rebuilding and Braun has a large contract, anything other than Braun being traded before his contract's up would amount to something in between a foolish & intolerable decision. Think of how the Brewers' two greatest players ever -- Yount & Molitor -- would've been over-scrutinized and raked over the coals if their respective personal/character dilemmas had happened in the current day (thinking of the late '70s major holdout & threat to leave baseball for professional golf in Yount's case, and the early '80s reported cocaine issues in Molitor's). There would've been cries to ship them out of town ASAP. . . . Nowadays too many folks are hung up on self-righteousness & intolerance of imperfection rather than forgiveness & healing. To wit, a year ago, here in Vikings Country, Adrian Peterson was serious persona non grata and lots of talk-show rhetoric was focused on kicking him out of town if not the NFL for good. All references to character assumed nothing but the worst. And while folks' overall view of AP is with more open eyes, now he's the NFL's leading rusher again, doing good things, and all those lynch-mob voices of a year ago are nowhere to be heard. . . . People grow, learn, and move on from their mistakes. They don't always have to be taken down to rock bottom. Heck, Paul Hornung was suspended for a year and still is in the HOF, and nowadays no Packers fans I know talk about him as anything other than a great player. Braun clearly showed in 2015 that when healthy & playing regularly, he still is in the league's upper eschelon of top players and is pretty clearly still the best player on the Brewers. While some say that's reason to trade him now (get while the getting's good & maximize return of young talent), I lean strongly toward the bird-in-the-hand side of the equation and figure he's a guy very much worth building around.

Flores may not be ready to start the season after breaking his ankle last September. I don't know if there have been any reports on his recovery. I sure hope Wren isn't starting at AAA over anyone on that list. Presley's a crapshoot, though I liked him in a darkhorse sort of way when he was up here w/ the Twins. Peterson's not a lousy bat (at times good), is adequate in the OF, and came up originally as a 1B -- there's your Stearns-positive versatility -- so I have absolutely no problem if he's the 25th guy on the roster backing up with occasional starts at any of 1B or the 3 OF spots.

If any of these guys prove to have the bat of a Jeff Cirillo, I'd gladly take that because it assures strong overall production in spite of below-stereotypical power.

And I would much rather trade Braun who will likely be bad by the time the Brewers are competitive again than Davis who will (hopefully) be still in his prime. Let's kill two birds with one stone, trade Braun to the Giants for Pagan and a prospect. Hmmm. I'd think Braun's ceiling (multiple-MVP-contending caliber and arguably a pretty complete player) is and has been quite higher than Davis', not that a single tool or stat of Davis' might not exceed Braun on that one count. That said, while Braun is 4 years older than Davis, Davis can still only hope his game reaches at least once the levels that Braun has reached with pretty high consistency when injuries (and that one, um, little screwup) haven't seriously hindered his play. Given how Braun produced once he got his groove back this past season after a 1.5 years of rust & injuries, including still having very solid speed as well at age 31, I'm inclined to think there's a very reasonable chance that in 4 years, Braun's still at least as good if not a better overall player at age 36 than Davis will be at age 32. I could well end up wrong. And if it's because Davis became the upper-eschelon player that Braun's been most of his career up 'til now, I'll more than gladly eat crow. . . . And if they're both terrible but Davis happens to be only slightly better, well, then who cares who proved to be right because that scenario doesn't bode well for the Brewers no matter how you slice it!

it would be sad to see the brewers returning Walsh or releasing Rivera to make room for Middlebrooks on the 40, but if the brewers want to dump peterson, more power to them.I don't think the Brewers would be even close to considering releasing Rivera. I wonder where that would've come from??? After Arcia, he's been the best SS prospect in the system for a few years. His star may not shine as brightly as Arcia's now, and he may never have been a stud prospect, but he's been at least solid in terms of prospect status and some degree of performance to merit that recognition.

If all Middlebrooks proves he's worth is the value of creating one more obstacle in Hernan Perez's path back to the Brewers' clubhouse, I'm all for it. I'd rather have him playing 3B at AAA than anyone else who never was even a name that merited consideration re: prospect status -- as in, someone who was never considered to have much of an upside in the first place.

One thing which, on quick recall, may not have been given much airtime in this discussion (i.e., not reviewing the whole thread), is that Haudricourt mentioned in a tweet when news of the trade broke was that the Red Sox started moving Cecchini around the diamond because he became blocked at 3B as soon as they signed Sandoval. Boston obvious still liked him because they were trying to find other ways he could establish versatility and a niche which might've helped him remain on the 25-man roster. It's not unlike what the Brewers did when they tried Jason Rogers at 3B when they had a stream of other guys playing (or at least attempting to play) Rogers' natural position of 1B. I've kept thinking of this as I've been reading the thread over the past 5 days because there have been several who are attributing Cecchini's positional moves (1B & OF) due to being a lousy defensive 3B, which appears to be a faulty assumption if Haudricourt's reporting is accurate (which I'm perhaps more inclined to trust than some).

Clarifying: I misspoke. Yes, the Cubs have only traded Castro. However, there are also oft-repeated rumblings that they'll willingly dangle Soler & Baez for a top-of-the-rotation SP. It obviously hasn't happened. But they sound like they're willing to use some young players as assets of value, whether that means they ever take the field for the Cubs or not. Then, when they sign the Heywards & Zobrists & Lackeys of the FA world, then probably trade for at least another (whether this winter or before the July or August deadlines), they're inevitably filling up roster spots with several guys on long-term deals and eventually blocking some of their prospects.

Over the past few years, the Royals' approach to building paid off. Strong vets were added to a gradually & solidly developing core. In the past year, the Cubs and Astros -- both with systems loaded with tons of high-end young talent -- went from the outhouse to the playoffs. Their ascent happened faster than most anticipated -- not necessarily less dramatically, just faster. BOTH teams' tear-down-and-build-from-scratch approach has been lauded by many, especially Brewers fans who wish the Crew were in a more similar position to both teams than they presently are. Now, however, the Cubs are doling out HUGE contracts on free agents and basically acting like Theo used to be able to do with the Red Sox, especially focusing on using plenty of their young talent as tradeable assets rather than as parts of the future core. Houston, by contrast, hasn't tossed around crazy money or grabbed the headlines this winter like the Cubs have. My point is this: For all the Cubs have been held up as one of the model for the Brewers to follow, within a year's time, they've now stepped far, far away from a model the Brewers can follow. Their ascent may continue. But their Boston/New York-like "all in" approach guarantees nothing in terms of sustainable long-term success. The Astros haven't leveraged everything, nor have the Royals, and I'd far prefer the Brewers focus on their approaches vs. that of the Cubs. What do you all think? Are the Cubs comparisons now moot? Whose organizational approaches do you still feel are worth the Brewers' efforts to emulate? Why?

I'm not sure how to feel about the 3 guys we got for Lind. But I'm definitely inclined to trust Stearns & the scouting staff and give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that at least 1 one alone if not 2 or all 3 each prove to be solid major leaguers, making the deal a win for the Brewers. I'll also root for Lind to have a kick-butt year in SEA, which would have no adverse consequences for MIL and would mean it could be a win-win for both teams.

MrTPlush, you voice your opinions here very regularly and consistently do so with ample evidence to support your view, which on a board like this is usually much better than the alternative. It also seems you're not too likely to be able to be persuaded otherwise, which is also fine. But in the course of stating your passionate/compelling viewpoints, you often come across as though there's only one logical/viable outcome when that's not necessarily the case. To put the above into context, you obviously think Segura is a lousy SS and have ample evidence to support the view. But it's possible he's not as lousy as you think. Personally I don't think he's awful but I also don't love him on this roster and figure his days in MIL are numbered given the other SS talent in the pipeline, whether that means days, weeks, or even another year or more. . . . It's also possible that trading Lucroy and Braun are neither prudent or inevitable, and that if the front office believe that to be the case with one or both of those guys, they have greater and more justified logic than we may ever know of, although that's a concluding thought more pertinent to the Lind/Lucroy/etc. thread.

I agree with your point, except perhaps you missed Counsell stating clearly that the team has no interest in moving Ryan Braun to 1B. The masses can move on from that idea now.