MNBrew

Wouldn't surprise me if the PTBNL from Detroit in the K-Rod trade turns out to be a 1B option.

The Brewers just DFA'd Perez. One DFA'd guy can't be worth that much more than the other. I'd keep Herrera over Perez and find a way to add Cecchini or someone like him. I don't know that much about Cecchini (I glanced at his stats & saw his nice history until a couple seasons ago) and I really don't care. Perez was a "throw things at the wall and see what sticks" type of acquisition; to me Cecchini would be the same thing, but an actual 3B rather than a utility IF who can play 3B.

It wouldn't take that much and no way I would do that. I will take a flyer on him, but I am not giving up value for him. That's why I suggested Hernan Perez.... I don't know if Cecchini would ever be better than Perez, but I'd gladly take a flyer on an actual 3B rather than yet another nondescript middle IF manning 3B in a continuingly nondescript way.

Or the Brewers could trade a marginal minor league asset for him. Hernan Perez comes to mind.

Sounds like you're describing a bad-fielding infield version of Logan Schafer. We've moved on from the OF version and we don't need an IF version in his place.

Sounds like you're describing a bad-fielding infield version of Logan Schafer. We've moved on from the OF version and we don't need an IF version in his place.

Sounds like you're describing a bad-fielding infield version of Logan Schafer. We've moved on from the OF version and we don't need an IF version in his place.

Tulowitzki is far less of a picture of good health than Braun, who's much better at staying on the field. Last 4 years ('12-'15 in that order), games played: Tulowitzki: 47, 126, 91, 128 Braun: 154, 61, 135, 140 Tulowitzki has only 3 years at all of playing at least 140 games. Braun has 6 including 5 straight of 150-160. Of course over half of Braun's games missed in '13 are for his suspension, not injury (though his thumb had become an issue, as we know). For as much as many want to think Braun's injury prone, Tulo's far more so.

Right. And I'm stubbornly principled enough to advocate for critical thinking and accuracy, not sound bytes and sensationalist/shoddy "reporting."

The PEDs aren't an issue for Melky Cabrera anymore, nor Jhonny Peralta, or a host of others. Technically I don't believe they're an issue for Braun, either, rather the terrible character/judgement he demonstrated when he was first let off the hook and the resulting ill will that brought on him from all corners. Time heals many things. Most people believe in second chances. However, some aren't willing to forgive in spite of Braun's time served, which to me is about as productive as continually picking at a scab 'til it bleeds recurringly, drastically slowing healing and creating an unnecessarily larger and often more visible scar than there would've been otherwise. On topic, for varying reasons, I believe these guys won't get traded this off-season: Braun, Lucroy, Garza, Nelson, Peralta, Jungmann, Thornburg, at least 3 out of Jeffress/Smith/Knebel/Blazek, and most if not all the young guys we got in trades last summer.

Reacting not to PBIB specifically but to the sentiments/slants expressed, which some folks do believe to be truth based on comments that continue to surface.... The first sentence above is correct. The rest isn't. - The Brewers did offer him the chance to pitch out of the pen, which he declined. - They encouraged him to stay with the team. They didn't send him home, let alone tell him to stay there. - It was Garza who chose to leave the team. He wasn't going to pitch again and his wife was late in her pregnancy with twins. I'd guess the Brewers would've preferred that Garza make different choices than he did, starting with accepting the chance to pitch out of the pen just like Lohse did. But at least in terms of how the whole episode was reported (publicly, anyway), Garza didn't go against any team mandates and chose options that the team made available to him or otherwise allowed. I'm not too keen on Garza, but it skews the picture to portray it inaccurately. I'd also guess that the Brewers know they're on the hook for two more years with a guy who, (uncontrolled/unclassy/immature?) petulance notwithstanding, has a good arm and a very solid track record, so it does them no good to do anything other than hope for the best out of him going forward -- the exact slant Counsell & the front office have voiced publicly.

Eh, on a contending team I'd 100% agree. Do whatever you can to win now if you think you have a shot at the playoffs. On a team that's projected for maybe 70 wins and is in the middle of the road for budget, I don't have much issue with it. I'm not saying potentially sabotage careers, but future salaries should be something to consider on a bad team with budget constraints. The Brewers may be a bad team, but they've pitched the situation well to the public and the fan base overall seems to get the situation and support the team. On top of that, they only have a couple guys making large (or really large) bucks and much of the rest of the roster is pretty inexpensive. In other words, I don't think the the Brewers are facing budget constraints given the current roster construction.

If the key is controllable young talent, and especially high-end young talent, there's zero reason to trade Arcia. He's precisely what you're trying to acquire and most in the Brewers organization don't measure up to him. I get the quantity thing -- big-picture-wise I agree -- but quality matters in this equation, too. The biggest issue with the Brewers' farm system post-2011 is the lack of blue-chip prospects. Now that we've got one -- and perhaps at the moment he's our only one (at least that we know of) -- considering trading Arcia seems contradictory and ridiculous, at least to my thinking.

Lind most certainly is an everday 1B. He's not an elite player, but he's quite solid (a sort of slightly-lesser current version of "Matt Stairs, professional hitter" as SportsCenter guys used to refer to him). Yes, his splits could've been better, but he wasn't a disaster vs. LHP, he played in nearly 150 games, and his overall offensive numbers and his defense were quite respectable. It comes across that you're painting him as something like the 2014 version of Lyle Overbay, which he's certainly not. Besides all that, when post-Epstein (or even over the past 15-20 years) have the Red Sox not gotten hung up on the "name" factor of players? I could see Boston as a decent fit for Lind & Garza, either separately or together. For me the unknown is the quantity/quality of what Boston would have in their system to part with in return, and therefore what other teams, if any, might match up better in terms of netting MIL the best possible return.

I echo the italicized part, but Lohse was signed so late in ST that the money spent on him surely didn't prevent the Brewers from signing a different player they valued a lot. And Garza was a late January signing (going into Brewers Fest weekend, as I recall), so the most desirable guys on the FA market (including many not-big-impact guys) had already been available and signable for nearly 3 months by that point, so surely that deal also didn't prohibit the Brewers from acquiring a roster-flexibility guy in the large chunk of the offseason before Garza became a Brewer (less than a month before ST).

This keeps coming up. It's the Scouting Director, not the GM, who runs the draft -- that's Ray Montgomery & not David Stearns. Assuredly the GM is in the room, doubtlessly he's had several conversations with the Scouting Director in terms of learning what's up and imparting his thoughts on organizational direction (and you'd figure he & the SD are pretty close to being on the same page or else the SD would be someone else), and you have to figure he's aware of the biggest names. But the draft is the Scouting Director's baby. The GM doesn't run in the start calling the shots.

I should clarify that although my hope is that Lucroy's not dealt, I'm very aware that it seems likely that he could be dealt. I choose to use the verb "seems" rather than "is" because people's view of it being likely is still just conjecture. However much the typical indicators & past precedent (other teams' histories/actions at a similar franchise-transition stage) might point toward him being traded, every circumstance is uniquely its own and anything could happen -- in any direction. For what it's worth, I value Lucroy a lot, but my preferring to keep him isn't a fan loyalty thing on my part (I don't view him as the face of the franchise, in other words, or my most favorite Brewer these days if I'd say I have one). I should also add that I don't consider signing Lohse to have been a foolish choice to sign. They got 2 very solid seasons from him (plus great staff leadership) with nothing to suggest the 3rd would be any different until it happened. And the main failure wasn't velocity or "stuff," just location/command. Garza looks shaky after 2 years but could just as easily rebound next year as get worse, so to my thinking the jury's still out on him (the last piece of evidence he offered just wasn't good in terms of his overall 2015).

Disclaimer: This post takes a little time to get to being on-topic. But first a little venting... What bothers me most in a lot of these discussions is how very intensely interested fans view themselves as definitive experts on how players project -- and often come across to others as though they themselves have the absolute best perspective from which to judge front office moves (not to mention other fans' opinions) on account of their knowledge gained almost solely from online resources . . . with little to no experience or access to scouts' knowledge or information or instincts, often with a stats-heavy bias that often seemingly largely excludes relevant eyeball-test type perspectives, and especially with little to no actual professional baseball experience let alone any sort of credible candidacy to work for a MLB team. . . . . Opinions simply are what they are. If someone's are stronger than someone else's, it doesn't necessarily make the first person any more right. Just like wanting something more badly than someone else doesn't automatically make that person the most qualified or deserving. A good part of this discussion is about Lucroy, his contract situation, and how he projects. Lucroy's game never projected him to become the caliber of relatively complete player that he actually has become in the majors, especially defensively (solid CS%, great ball-blocking, good pitch-framing, improved footwork). Of course inevitably he's going to tail off!!! The honest unknown is if that starts at 30, 33, 35, 38, whatever. People talk about him as injury prone. Not all his injuries are signs of being injury prone -- some of it's just fluky or bad luck (broken finger due to a suitcase falling on his hand (fluke!), broken toe due to fouling a ball off his foot (bad luck!)) as opposed to chronic muscle or joint issues..... I like the guy as a player and don't favor trading him, preferring to see him as part of the team's core going forward assuming the price is reasonable enough (not everyone in the core has to be 23 and making the minimum right now) -- that's just my opinion -- all in spite of the fact that no one can say definitively how he will or won't do in his next 150, 1500, or 10 years' worth of ABs and innings played or what he would or wouldn't net in return if he's ever traded. People love to use the Cardinals as a measuring stick (as frustrating as that is for many of us to do). It's a fair knock on the Brewers that most of the guys -- esp. pitchers (Suppan, Wolf, etc.) -- signed to multi-year deals haven't fared well by the end of those deals. On the other hand, the Cardinals historically sign far more well-proven vets than the Brewers yet rarely have any of those contracts end up in the albatross category. Is the issue the length of contract? No. It's who they sign. What I'd be very interested in figuring out is why they tend to pick the right guys and we seemingly don't. . . . That said, Yadier Molina is still a very good catcher, yet he's on a 10-year deal & arguably not performing so commensurately anymore with the big-bucks he's getting (.719 & .660 OPS the past two years), yet most around baseball still respect him for who he is & what he does. Tony Cruz isn't anything great (except seemingly against MIL) but I don't think Cardinal Nation is screaming for Molina to be moved because he costs so much.

I think by "claim," ClosetBrewerFan meant "pick up someone in some form or another," not "take someone in the Rule 5 draft."

Agreed. So we in essence, traded Gallardo for Flores? I do not understand why we would need another OFer to crowd our already over-populated OF depth. I don't like either of the last two trades, and I really want Stearns to be successful in Milwaukee. Just seem pointless to me... We really know nothing about Daniel Fields (who at the moment I wouldn't mind seeing DFA'd if anything better comes along) and beyond Shane Peterson (who I like and want to keep and definitely is more of an asset than Ben Guez), who else was going to be one of the two backup OFs on the 25-man roster? I don't mean later in 2016, but on Opening Day. I don't think anyone who's been advocating an improved approach to player development should be wanting Philips, Reed, etc. to be sitting on the MLB bench in the Logan Schafer role (5th OF & PH). Ramon Flores apparently has proven enough in the minors that he can hit, which I'd think is an important skill. I think I like the Villar deal, especially if it means Hernan Perez has less of a chance of making the team at this point -- better defense and distinct speed.

That's not a given, and I hope it doesn't prove correct. Until he tailed off at the end -- no doubt partly to going from everyday play to bench play again once Santana arrived -- he's one of the few guys on the team outside of Lucroy, Braun, & Lind that looked like he had a consistent idea of what to do at the plate AND could execute. He's nothing fancy, but I think he's a decent player. He certainly was a capable PH, which is a valuable & necessary skill, esp. in the NL.

Reading the description, does he sound to anyone else besides me like a sort of Venezuelan version of Counsell (as a player)?

It can totally kill the psyche of a team -- especially a mostly-young team -- to have incompetence blow a slew of 9th inning leads -- all the more so when 9th inning leads are a whole lot more tough to come by than they've been over the past decade. And we're sure looking to be a mostly-young team. . . . When you're teaching a large number of young players to win together in the majors & when you're working hard to build the foundation of a culture of winning, it risks being totally contradictory to that aim to leave the 9th inning to guys that don't have anything near the experience -- let alone the success -- K-Rod has. I get what you're saying: Big-buck closers are SO much a thing of the 2000's, not the 2010's, let alone something that will likely net a large return of prospects, so K-Rod likely does us little good in terms of keeping on the roster because he could eventually be swapped for multiple valuable young assets. . . . I get the logic, but I disagree that that's the only logical way to proceed. IF K-Rod continues to prove he's productive and an upper-eschelon closer, there's no guarantee he's not still around as the closer in 3-4 years even though that would defy most trends and conventional thinking.

Stearns has hinted at retaining Lucroy and the Brewers have Lucroy as the focus of a couple all-fan giveaways. If the Brewers were looking to trade him, you'd think they would've at least held off a while before focusing on Lucroy more than any other player in their 2016 giveaways.

I believe the answer to your question is the former and would guess the latter is either conjecture or pipe dream.