MNBrew

This is no given and I have serious doubts the Brewers would or should consider either. I hear all the logic about moving Braun. Keep in mind that many on this site are pre-disposed to quick turnover from a franchise's downswings and tend to heavily favor young players (obviously with some oft-written justifications). But there's logic on the flip side, too, just that many here don't agree with. Cubs- and especially Astros-like total roster blowups hardly guarantee success and often turn into a cycle that doesn't easily if ever turn upward. I think Braun & Lucroy are just the types of players to have at the core of this turnaround -- Lucroy for his value on the field and to the pitching staff, Braun for his value on the field (partly aided by his humongous contract and PED past, but why not still focus on turning that into a positive for the caliber of player the Brewers can keep for the long term?)

I get the impression Peterson's more athletic than Brady Clark.

I wonder if Braun's thumb is acting up a little since most hits seem to be to RF. But one of the beat writers mentioned very recently that he's still consistently driving the ball with authority. As long as that's the case, I don't care which field it goes to. His power seems to be closer on track with his good years, his speed is fine, his BA is holding fairly steady if not improving, his walk rate is up, and his defense is reliably solid. In all, that seems like he's still in much better shape & playing much better than he was this time last year. On a different note, Bryant strikes me as this year's version of pre-2015 Bryce Harper: far more hype than results, with Bryant's main attribute being immense raw power vs. Harper's overall promise but overall-average results.

Roache's hitting .259 at AA after hitting .267 in A+ this year. He's nowhere close to AAA yet, let alone the bigs for next year unless about 6 other OFs get injured.

There are times & situations when a wig makes sense. This one's foolin' nobody. Ilitch is in his 80s, right? No one buys that hair color or hair "health" (thickness or whatever) as legit.

If a guy can just plain hit well and play solid, smart defense in CF, and as long as he's not a tortoise (which Peterson is not), I couldn't care less about low HRs. He's got a good OBP. He's having lots of good ABs including surprising success as a PH. That's just the sort of bat this largely all-or-nothing team has needed the past few years. So it seems really contradictory & screwy to hear complaints about the guy having little power. Mark Loretta & Jeff Cirillo weren't flashy, just darn good. It's quite a ways off in terms of longevity, but if Shane Peterson amounts to anything close to what those guys did, that makes him a very respectable ballplayer!

A solid everyday 1B with an .841 OPS in spite of his flaws against LHP . . . AND an All-Star closer for a single young 3B prospect? I think you're seriously underestimating the worth of the Brewers' proven (not to mention affordable) assets, let alone the value of another team's prospects. Sorry, I just think that as a rule, 2 proven front-line MLB players for a single unproven mid-minors prospect is a bit too disparate to be remotely realistic. And if the 3B guys you're talking about are acquired merely to hold down the fort 'til Lara's ready, they can't be that high-ceiling-ish as prospects or else you'd prefer them in the long run over Lara anyway. But that's not the picture you're painting.

^^^ There are significant facts missing here that fit with the Mark-A-blaming narrative.... Yes, Melvin's plan through the winter was to go with the young arms.... and then through most of spring training, the rotation was basically a near-total dumpster fire (outside of Gallardo, it was that Fiers stunk, Rogers was hurt & couldn't pitch, Peralta was basically unproven and not pitching with any consistency yet, etc....) and the youth they'd planned to rely on proved that there were major issues. The rotation needed at least a bit of veteran stability not to mention a bit of proven success, and Lohse's price came down enough that Melvin moved and made a deal happen. Best of all, it worked: The rotation was improved, Lohse was at least worth what he was getting paid, and Lohse also proved to be a great clubhouse guy & mentor for all the young guys on the pitching staff. It's also worth noting that it's Boras' MO to go straight to owners on his big-ticket guys. Back on topic, a day later, while I like the notion of an experienced hand stepping in, I'm not sure that Dombrowski amounts to much more than Melvin 2.0. I like Melvin a lot, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the best move to establish a new long-term vision. . . . Or we doubters could well be proven quite wrong, too. At this point, who really knows?

He's not shy at making moves but since he left Montreal, has he ever led the charge of a youth movement that's lasted well (and not been short-circuited by his FL or DET owner to sell off those assets for proven and/or name players)? I like the idea of getting a guy who knows what he's doing. But with where the team is, I'd certainly want someone who's good at being patient with a long-term plan and who's willing to make the right moves accordingly.

As much as I don't like how he's pitched this year, Garza's track record suggests this year is an outlier. With two years left on his contract and with him being the only significantly-well-established SP on the team, I don't think you dump him just to dump him. Salary relief for next year is NOT a need at this point. If it's next July and he still hasn't straightened his game out, then that's a whole different deal. In the meantime, I still can't figure why the Yankees won't take Lohse off our hands for a song.

I'm really surprised the Twins didn't make a strong move to get Cotts. Goodness knows their BP could use some help. Between Aaron Hicks & Byron Buxton, only 1 can play everyday CF at a time. Then again, Buxton probably needs to prove he can stay healthy before they trade away another CF (like they did with Span & Revere in the same winter).

Alex Rios in 2009. Wasn't that some closer going to or from San Diego once, too, a number of years prior to Alex Rios? I was thinking it was Randy Myers, but checking baseball-reference.com, it was someone else.

Well, so much for that.

In the winter, Garza might be seen as a reasonable trade target for teams desperate for any kind of upgrade to their rotation. And it's possible that if the Brewers are looking to move him to clear roster and/or payroll space, the asking price may not be prohibitive. I love the Zimmermann idea because he's a dang good pitcher. If he sees the Brewers as having the right kind of young talent and the right environment in which it can develop, then he might be willing to join a team he sees as being soon on its ascent -- similar (though not completely) to Jon Lester signing with the Cubs. The home-state angle just might help him be a little more receptive to seeing the Brewers in the ready-to-ascend stage. Call it blasphemous, but he's a guy you throw the big money at because I think he's just that good.

For all the speculation about Lind to St. Louis, Haudricourt mentioned after the deadline dust settled that the Cardinals weren't ever going hard after Lind. It could be that the Cardinals inquired, but if Melvin was even "motivated to move him," then quite possibly St. Louis wasn't willing to meet a logically strong asking price (for that production/cost combo and the option year). There was no urgent need to trade Lind if the right deal wasn't there to be had. In the end, if St. Louis never seriously pursued Lind, then the "logical match" most everyone saw as being there was really only a matter of media- & fan-speculated match-making.

The problem isn't Dominguez or Herrera or Perez. The problem is Hector Gomez is terrible and Valencia is a capable, reasonably productive 3B. I'd rather play someone who can actually play there than continue to have Gomez taking up a spot needlessly on the 25-man roster.

With Elian Herrera & Hernan Perez already on the roster, Danny Valencia sure seems like a far better fit on this roster than Hector Gomez, whose recent stats include these points of "productivity": - 0 for his last 10 - 1 for his last 17 - 6 for his last 46 - 23 for 125 on the season for a stunning .184 BA H. Gomez is reaching levels of non-production that are approaching Mark Reynolds' 2nd half last year, though of course minus any trace of power.

People love to use that Porcello deal for comparison, but really how is he similar to Garza? Porcello was extremely young for a FA at that time and Red Sox were banking on potential. Garza is extremely old with no future upside. Not to mention most hated that Porcello deal when it happened. - Porcello wasn't a FA. Last winter was his last pre-FA arbitration winter. He was traded to Boston, who then signed him to the current contract. - Garza's 31. That's not extremely old at all. Past mid-point or past prime? Quite possibly. But not anywhere near extremely old. - I don't get the bias in your view that Porcello's deal isn't a comparable one to Garza when Porcello's never been anywhere near the pitcher that Garza has. He came up with more fanfare and promise, yes, but he hasn't delivered better results on the whole -- nowhere close. . . . Keeping it simple, prior to this year, Garza has had fewer years with a >4.00 ERA (1 out of his 9) than Porcello has had with a <4.00 ERA (2 out of his 6). Garza's career ERA coming into this year was about 3.65 and Porcello's was 4.30, with Porcello's entire career up to that point at spacious Comerica Park while Garza spent 5.5 of his seasons at hitters parks (Metrodome, Wrigley, & Miller Park). . . . - If you don't like Garza and you do view Porcello with at least some favor, that's your opinion & that's fine. However, it doesn't adequately counter the strong argument that LouisEly makes that any solid, credible (read: non-bargain-bin, non-injury-rebound) FA SP with a decent track record is likely to get a contract with a greater AAV than Garza's current deal.

More importantly, he's a 3B by trade (that's what he came up as with the Twins) and it's clear there's no functional long-term plan there yet. I don't love the guy, but he's hitting better this year than anyone else we've got for 3B (yes, I know Perez's MIL numbers are good, but the I'm thinking of his year overall and his recent tailing off a little bit).

Parra's still likely gone (like the other 3 traded this week, a very nice pro). Cotts should net something respectable (ditto the pro thing -- handled a tough start with class and has continued to improve). And I think that may be it. Lohse gone would be a very pleasant surprise. That may depend on if the Yankees now need something or if he's used as a leverage piece in or to expand another deal. Broxton gone would be, well, not as exciting as it would've been in April/May/June because he's been generally decent lately, but netting anything for him would be a Christmas bonus in July.

If you read Haudricourt's blog post on the Gomez fiasco, you know he's being facetious because he's the one that put the puzzle pieces together that the issue that caused the Mets' cold feet on the trade was far more likely MONEY than any medical/injury concern for Gomez (which obviously wasn't legit).

I like the idea but the source listed means nothing so far.

I really think it's not that they can't make trades happen (2 this week now), but that they can't make the Mets not be, well, the Mets.

Haudricourt just posted this blog on the JSOnline (free access) which puts a lot more details into seemingly proper context. I appreciate the last sentence gives proper credit to Doug Melvin for how he handled this whole thing. I also appreciate TH's distinct efforts at accurate reporting. Both Brewers general manager Doug Melvin and agent Scott Boras disputed the notion Thursday morning that centerfielder Carlos Gomez has a hip issue serious enough to flunk a medical review. The Brewers thought they had a deal with the Mets on Wednesday evening to send Gomez to New York in exchange for injured pitcher Zack Wheeler and infielder Wilmer Flores. That deal was called off by the Mets over what they said was a hip issue with Gomez that concerned them. Boras, who represents Gomez, said Gomez never had a hip issue to begin with and certainly doesn't have one now. Boras said the health problem Gomez had in early June was something else that since had been medically cleared. "Carlos never had any issue with his hip," Boras said in a telephone interview Thursday morning. "He had an abductor and groin issue a few weeks ago and just to make sure he was OK, we requested the team do an MRI that showed his abductor had healed with medication. The doctor just happened to throw in, 'By the way, his hip structurally and tissue-wise is clean.' "So, we have evidence that a doctor on record said his hip in fact was clean. So, why did this become an issue." Melvin, who would only say Wednesday night that a medical issue arose that nixed the trade, reiterated Thursday morning that the Brewers felt Gomez's hip was fine. “Carlos Gomez, in my mind, is healthy," Melvin told FOX Sports' Ken Rosenthal. "There’s no issue. We don’t feel there’s anything wrong with his hip.” So, what really happened that led to the Mets calling off the deal? A source familiar with the talks on both sides said a series of events that were actually financial, not medical, were the key factors. That source said in initial talks, the Mets wanted the Brewers to take centerfielder Juan Lagares in the trade. The Brewers said no, in part because Lagares has an elbow issue but also because he has a four-year, $23 million contract extension that kicks in next year and they didn't want to pick up the money. So, after further talks, it was decided that the Brewers would take Flores in addition to Wheeler, who is recovering from Tommy John surgery and won't be able to pitch before next June. The source said the Mets then asked the Brewers to throw in the 2016 Competitive Balance Round B pick they were recently awarded and the Brewers said no. The source said the Brewers then were asked to put some money in the trade to cover part of what's remaining on Gomez's contract, including a $9 million salary next year. Considering the talent level of Gomez and his reasonable contract, the Brewers understandably declined to put any cash into the deal. It was only then, according to the source, that the Mets came back and said they were calling off the deal because of concerns over Gomez's medical records. So, this became a financial issue in the end, which many people would say is not surprising considering the financial constraints the Mets have been operating under in recent years. And I'm guessing the Brewers are none too thrilled about how this transpired, though the diplomatic Melvin would never say so.

^^ It's been reported that both contending (for his skills/production) and non-contending teams (ditto plus his 2016 contract situation) have been pursuing Gomez, so CLE's interest isn't surprising. Boras has his minions prepping a 73-page document that explains why: -Gomez's hips are not only healthy, but function better than 98.3% of other MLB ballplayers -his hip quality suggests teams would be getting a bargain by acquiring him, as they alone are worth $8 million per year -the Mets are idiots All these things would seem to be true (only partly sarcastic), but it can't hurt that it's the Mets rather than the Brewers who put themselves in Boras' crosshairs.