MNBrew

If it's Fiers, then I'd say throw in an Olmsted or JF21 for good measure just to get them to say yes. . . . and it's not that I care much for Davis, but I do see how he could potentially have a much higher ceiling than Fiers.

Geez, Monty, are you that cynical and myopic about Attanasio that you can't see that the Lohse signing was so obviously a baseball decision more than anything - in combination with fortuitous timing for a quasi-reasonable contract for a proven guy who proved to be our best SP last year? It was pretty darn obvious to pretty much everybody through spring training that most of the young SPs whom so many on this site (myself included) were saying deserved a chance weren't working out??? Fiers stunk. Rogers lost his velocity & ability to pitch worth a darn. Peralta didn't wow anyone in ST and earned his rotation spot partly by default. Thornburg showed in ST that he wasn't ready yet. That left Gallardo (and his WBC-affected lousy spring) and Estrada (another WBC guy) and a whole lot of prayers in the rotation -- not only a season-long death wish in the standings but also a horrible PR angle!!! Back on topic, I don't believe Melvin plays the PR angles any more than any other GM. In the same MLB Network interview Louis Ely just cited (it was actually 36 day games after a night game), one of the hosts interviewing him lauded him as one of the most honest/open GMs in the business in terms of what he says to the media.

DHonks, I'd take Gamel, too -- especially if that allows us to get rid of JF21, but they have yet to re-sign Gamel now that he's been non-tendered & therefore is an FA. Defensively he'd be a dropoff from Loney's glove, but I'd still go for that move. Short of that move, I'd rather see Loney . . . partly because I REALLY don't want JF21 around b/c they'll be too tempted by his power to use him (typically ignoring his other faults until they've caused way too much damage).

The more I think about Loney, the more & more solid an option he strikes me as being. He's not flashy, he's not a power "stud," but he's a pretty solid all-around player. He's also "only" 29, meaning a 3-year/$21M deal (not $27, I don't think) or 2/$16M w/ a vesting option likely wouldn't push him into the twilight of his career . . . and he'd have value if he's close to his career norms if/when one of the string of young 1B's finally proves worthy of unseating Loney.

Have you really given up hope with more of the winter ahead of us than behind us? The Series ended 6 weeks ago. ST is over 2 months away. I get being disappointed that Hart left for 2x the money, but this seems a bit extreme. We knew the options weren't great INCLUDING HART, who's hardly a given with 2 knee surgeries & a full year off. I wouldn't be surprised if he returned to his old form, but he'll be 1.5 years older than in the last game he played and goodness knows he'll still chase a zillion low-and-away sliders. There's still time and there are still options, some of which we have no idea about.

Morrison getting traded to SEA is like taking one dangerous weapon & putting it out of a kid's reach. Now if only Ike Davis would get traded there!

I'm not crazy about Loney but the Brewers must REALLY feel Halton/Morris/Rogers aren't nearly ready for the big time, yet. Thoughts of Francisco appearing anywhere other than the transactions column (meaning actually on the field) is cause for nightmares -- been there, seen that, & got sick because of it. At minimum, if they signed Loney, I'd think there would still be a trade market later for Loney if one of the young guys shows (or ever gets a chance to show) he's for real. I like Hart a lot but figured he was a one-year fix anyway, and his health is quite a gamble, though I'd expect him to rebound close to career norms (actual numbers or at least paced that way) IF he's healthy.

Huge talent & resume. I'd consider a gamble very worth taking if the medicals are even remotely encouraging. If it pans out well, it gives the team leverage to trade another veteran/proven starter for good assets or bump a younger guy to the 'pen.

Gomez & Lohse for Lee?

The thing about saying Smith will compete for a starting spot is the same as saying it about Thornburg, Nelson, Hellweg, & Burgos, plus who knows who else at this point: You don't just hand one of those guys a spot -- not a one of 'em (although IMO Thornburg deserves at least a little cred, just like Estrada did last winter & the year before). You create competition & make 'em earn it. The obvious thing is that none of us really know what Smith will do. We can read reports, get into the deep stats, etc., but none of that matters as much as what the guy actually does when he gets out there on the mound at Maryvale & then Miller Park. I'm all for that open competition and racking up as many more good young arms as possible while keeping the current roster mostly intact (save the necessary or can't-turn-down move that's necessary to address glaring needs AND increase the talent base).

The specifics vary, but this sounds similar to the sort of dysfunction that marked the end of Harry Dalton's term as Brewers GM, when players weren't sure what they could say to whom and coaches Larry Haney and Andy Etchebarren were known to be Dalton's "eyes and ears" in the clubhouse. Larry Haney was only the bullpen coach for most of his Brewers coaching tenure, but he somehow made it through every managerial change in Dalton's tenure and surely was coated in teflon. I used to go early to games at County Stadium to hang out in the bleachers during batting practice and hope for a ball from someone in the bullpen. While the pitchers were anywhere from game-focused to usually polite if not pleasant, Larry Haney came off as nothing but a jerk most of the time. Hopefully that wasn't truly the case, only a teenager's impression, but that perception of him has stuck with me for the past 30 years.

I do believe Gomez is everything he's showing now. This ability is what they've been talking about w/ him since he came up: a legit 5-tool player with rare speed, Gold Glove defense, huge power, and a much improving bat. But he's also signed for 3 more years at well below FA market value. He's the sort of guy teams often build around. I think some folks are more inclined to doubt him because more of his development happened at the MLB level -- in part because of when the Mets initially brought him up, and then further because the Twins felt they needed to have him on the field as part of their return for trading a repeat Cy Young Award winner -- ultimately meaning we've seen plenty of the lousiness in his early game because it happened while he was wearing a Brewers uniform rather than being hidden down in the minors. . . . Funny how 2-3 years ago, so many were ready to run Gomez out of town (myself included), but patience and development are REAL and can bear out or even transcend statistically based projections. Part of my hesitancy to trade Gomez also is rooted in those '90s teams, when guys we were trading off to favor the younger player (not moves like the Vaughn deal when we knew he was an FA goner; rather, trading Vina rather than Belliard is the only one that comes to mind, although I distinctly recall there were 1-2 others just like it around the same time -- Loretta or Cirillo, maybe?) kept backfiring because the young guys never reached their predecessor's performance level and eventually amounted to nothing great. In light of that, . . . . . . . I get the idea of trading at peak value to net a return of young talent, but I think what some on BF.net lose sight of is that that's a gamble with a payoff that's still ultimately got a greater likelihood of failure than success. . . . It just puts the failure off for a while and in the meantime strings along the fan base under the premise of hope. I'm not arguing that it's a needed strategy at times and, when a team does it right, it can position a team well for a long period of time. However, I don't fault DM & MA for taking their "retooling" approach each year because the "young talent" thing is also a HUGE gamble with no better guaranteed result than the approach the Brewers have taken for the past 6-7 years. That's why I'm tending to agree w/ JB12's angle that it at least bears having Gomez's replacement on-hand before trading him.

Hellweg's got great stuff but lousy control. His BB were outrageous in MLB (not that a rookie with the initial yips is anything new), but they were also very poor in AAA. It'd be easy to cite how another tall/skinny/huge-arm guy, Randy Johnson (ironically, like Hellweg, also one of three top prospects -- w/ Brian Holman and Gene Harris -- traded for an ace in Mark Langston), took 3-5 years in MLB to finally harness his ability and dominate MLB for a decade or more (Johnson's BB numbers were atrocious his first 3 full years and arguably might not have lasted in MLB long enough to work that out if it weren't for the patience Seattle showed -- he didn't really hit his stride and have truly good WHIP figures 'til his 6th MLB season at age 29). But Hellweg's got a long way to go before showing he could be that kind of pitcher -- and lots of guys like him have flamed out and never come close to putting it together. Back on topic, I'm not inclined to trade either Gomez or Braun, though I'd probably at least listen on Gomez.

Putting it that way, I think it's between Morrison & Hart. I want nothing to do with Ike Davis. Reading a Marlins blog (linked from mlbtraderumors.com) by Joe Frisaro, apparently the Marlins previously have coveted Juan Francisco. Both Morrison & JF are projected to earn between $1.5M & $1.8M in their first arby-eligible year. Can we just swap those guys for each other right away & call it good? I'm not sure I'm enamored of Morrison, but I like him a whole lot better than JF -- especially given the occasional appraisal out there suggesting he could be a 3B backup or fill-in option -- Yikes!!! (I'm also not sure why "of" is the proper preposition to follow "enamored," but apparently it is. That always sounds weird.)

Maybe this is a crazy idea, but with Cano signing in Seattle today, do you think the Yankees might have a bit of interest in Rickie Weeks? Related (though partially counterintuitive) thought: If the Brewers picked up a decent chunk of Weeks' contract (not that the Yankees don't have dough -- it'd be about the return), do you see maybe a Brett Gardner coming back this way? Or could a combination of those moves enable a trade of Gomez for a collection of serious young assets? If YES to all that, would the return be worth what was given up? (On this sub-zero day in MN, the ideas are just snowballing -- pun intended.)

Funny how thinking about Smith makes it easier to focus on the number of decent young arms that could comprise the staff in general and specifically the bullpen. While I only envision a big-time addition via trade if the perfect deal falls into their laps (I'd put the likelihood at <2%), I could still see them plucking the right available FA arm later in the winter if that guy's available. But there seems to be less of a need than there was before. They still have Gorzelanny, who has lots of experience and who's proven better out of the 'pen in recent years. The guy I specifically wonder if they'll sign later is K-Rod. Not your ideal citizen, perhaps, but his only real success over the past 3 years has been in MIL, and he's seemed to enjoy his time here and respect his teammates & the organization. I'm not sure that's ultimately the best guy to add, but it makes some sense, especially given that they've talked about adding someone with closing experience.

Melvin's entire history is the reason to mistrust him. Where are we now as a franchise compared to when he took over. The first few years it was great but recently he has been trading away the future over and over again for the present. He did the same thing in Texas. I don't think you could ever be convinced that Melvin's done anything positive. You're great at ripping what he's done. What would you have done? In most cases Melvin's trades have gotten rid of lesser assets for better or more usable ones. In the very few cases he's gone for a major upgrade by trading a decent amount of young talent (Linebrink, Sabathia, Greinke, & Marcum trades), almost everyone he's given up hasn't proven to have much if any serious major league staying power and there's no reason to think they would've panned out any differently had they stayed in the Brewers' system. But you're saying the Brewers' organization would've been better off keeping all those young guys, most of whom never amounted to much? Sorry, but other than the Linebrink trade, I think those moves still panned out pretty well for the Crew. The guy who's clearly done the best overall after those trades is Joe Thatcher, an Indy league signing who's only a role-filling BP lefty -- just the type most folks would agree is easily & annually replaceable. Cain, Escobar, & Brantley, have done alright, but Cain's been hurt a lot, Escobar can still field but not hit with any consistency, and it took Brantley another 3-4 years after that trade to start playing consistently well -- and Brantley arguably doesn't bring much different to the table than Aoki, who we got for peanuts and whom we paid peanuts. In the meantime, we've had comparable guys to those last 3 come up through our system (or via trade in Segura's case) and show just as much if not more promise. It just seems Melvin could GM the Brewers through 5 straight World Series and cure cancer along the way and you'd still be standing firm that he sucks at his job.

If (and it's a fairly large "if" at this point) he can live up to some of the more optimistic early projections, Logan Schafer might be a respectable leadoff hitter IF Davis falters badly enough and/or something else happens that puts Schafer into the regular lineup for an extended period. (Like I said, it's a fairly large "IF" given how things went last year in his extended time in a sometimes rather limited role. It's kinda like my point in another thread that I'd be kind of excited if Ramirez ended up at first and, given the promise he's shown through a couple of his healthy full seasons in the minors, Taylor Green's play through ST earned him a spot as the everyday 3B -- not a bad thing to hope for, necessarily, assuming he lives up to his earlier promise, but ultimately still a very large IF.)

There are more than a couple of us MN residents aboard here, Woozee. Glad you've joined the party, too.

Acevedo never would've been a starter. Smith has had enough developmental success to show that that's still a possibility. It's a cherry-picked response, but Johan Santana had two very good years mostly out of the bullpen in spite of late-season success as a starter before the Twins would finally concede him a spot in their Opening Day rotation. Point: Smith may prove he's only a reliever, but I'm not buying for one second that that's all he'll be until he proves it.

Sure it was. But looking at the totality of Melvin's moves over his decade or whatever in MIL, I still feel there's far more reason to trust him than to view every scenario with a default mistrust.

My feelings in a nutshell. I really liked Aoki and really didn't want to see him go. Khris Davis holds a lot of promise but still represents a gamble. But the bottom line is that we very definitely need more good, young arms, and this deal netted them one. The more good, young arms you have you have, the better chance that some will develop into "core" type players. I like the deal. For a team in the Brewers' situation, you have to manage your risks -- meaning you're going to have to continually be working young players into the mix in some part or parts of your roster. You can only pay so many big-buck contracts at a time. Some of your roster will be experienced role players. Some will be pre-arby guys, and some of those guys will be "kids" just coming up, some of whom will flop and some of whom will succeed. It's a delicate balance, but it's so crucial for a team like the Brewers to maintain. What you have to do is be willing to give the young guys a chance. We'll never know what Melvin's other options were. To criticize his approach assumes a knowledge of his options and details of his trade talks that we flat-out don't -- and won't -- fully have. Reading through this thread, it's funny how obvious it is that some folks were bound to trash Melvin no matter what trade he made for Aoki unless it netted us David Price along with a below-market 5-year extension, getting Tampa to take Rickie Weeks in the deal, as well, without swallowing any of his contract.

I'm not sure why you feel the scouting insights you've heard -- and I'm guessing these, like most, were BEFORE the Brewers traded for him -- automatically carry more weight than the opinions of the Brewers' front office, who are extremely experienced and who see him play everyday. Stats are great and worthy of so much of the clout they carry throughout sports, but they can be independent and therefore also ignorant of the eyeball-obvious, which is not devoid of truth. The Brewers signed Yuni after having him play for them for an entire year. That's one negative. If that's all it takes to offset all the positives, that simply reveals a very jaded perspective.

I'm not sure why you feel the scouting insights you've heard -- and I'm guessing these, like most, were BEFORE the Brewers traded for him -- automatically carry more weight than the opinions of the Brewers' front office, who are extremely experienced and who see him play everyday. Stats are great and worthy of so much of the clout they carry throughout sports, but they can be independent and therefore also ignorant of the eyeball-obvious, which is not devoid of truth.

Garza turned down his QO, which is in the $14M/yr range. He likely won't accept *only* $12M/yr unless he's still unemployed 3/4 of the way through ST like Lohse was. I'd guess that's the only way he'll ever sniff the home clubhouse at Miller Park, too. But I'd also guess Melvin would be extremely hesitant to give up their #1 pick 2 years in a row. On top of that, while he may be one of the best SP's on the FA market, I just don't think Garza's a good enough pitcher for Milwaukee to justify that organizational cost.