ImageImage

2017 Roster

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25

User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 23,434
And1: 771
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#61 » by Kerb Hohl » Wed Oct 5, 2016 2:33 pm

coolhandluke121 wrote:A bottoming-out team goes into the season with guys like Cravy, Goforth, Pina, and Reed on the roster from day 1. This team gave themselves a puncher's chance of being successful. I have every reason to believe that was done consciously, because they could have easily rebuilt and stock-piled minor league talent without staying somewhat competitive. Look at Cincy, Atlanta, and SD, for example; it seems every time you looked up, one of them had traded a productive vet regardless of whether they had a decent stopgap replacement or not.


coolhandluke121 wrote:Look at Cincy


They played Phillips all year, Hamilton went down late, they were assuming Homer Bailey would be back among others. They HAD to trade Bruce pretty much. The reason they sucked worse is simply more inept management. By your logic, they should have been offering to trade Votto to teams and offering to pay the final 3 years of his contract or something. They kept a veteran Cozart all year. Beyond that, unless they dealt Suarez who still has a lot of team control or Duvall (a Chris Carter-type acquisition), they have nobody else that is a vet to trade.

coolhandluke121 wrote:, Atlanta


Not much of an argument here, but they have been going in circles so much that they now have to make win-now trades to not completely embarrass themselves in their new stadium. They traded FOR Matt Kemp and were looking into Lucroy. Again, I like what they've done the past 2-3 years but they tanked almost too much and did some **** insane things like trade for 31-year-old "prospect" Hector Olivera last year.

They kept Markakis, Inciarte, Teheran, Freeman, etc. I didn't see them trading any vets other than Kelly Johnson.

Again, true to form, they did make some good moves like trading the reliever and Harrell who they had picked up 3 weeks early for a somewhat valuable minor leaguer.

coolhandluke121 wrote:, and SD


They bottomed out because they had one of the dumbest offseasons in MLB history the year before that. They traded for a bunch of RH platoon hitters that can't hit in Petco. It was asinine.

All of that said, they still have Myers and they called up a lot of productive players. They also had their starting pitching staff devastated by injury and that was most of the reason they were worse than the Brewers. If Tyson Ross was healthy to start the year, they may have finished ahead of the Brewers.


You're trying to shape your argument to fit the narrative that you want.


This isn't the NBA and the Brewers did the best they could/what they should have done. They tried to deal Braun but struck out at the end.

I have no **** clue what leads you to believe that they're going to trade for a "win now" guy for Braun. If they get Puig, it's probably because they want to flip him again...although he is young enough to contribute in the next window if he really does rebound.

You can't blame the Brewers for being smarter than these other teams, even when they're trying to tank a bit. I'd trade back 3 picks in the draft to have Stearns running the show (from what he's shown so far) and a bonus of Mark A being willing to rebuild. That's more important. We'll survive picking 9th instead of 6th or 7th.
User avatar
coolhandluke121
Head Coach
Posts: 7,285
And1: 1,068
Joined: Sep 23, 2007

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#62 » by coolhandluke121 » Wed Oct 5, 2016 3:49 pm

I don't get your post at all Kerb. Did you think I was complaining about what the Brewers have done or that I'm arguing that they should have bottomed out more? I like what the Brewers have done. I just don't think they're willing to bottom out, which is fine. Like SD and Cincy and Zona now, their bottoming-out was a few years ago due to short-sighted decisions. This whole debate, if you can even call it that, is because I said I don't think the Brewers have "torn it down". They haven't decimated their roster at all. They retooled on the fly around younger players and prospects, but they didn't give up on multiple future seasons or anything like that. Maybe Atlanta is the only team you can truly say has done so, but that's the kind of situation I would reserve the "tear it down" terminology for then. Sacrificing wins can be beneficial in baseball, but it's still not nearly like the NBA where multiple teams are deliberately gutting their roster.

I definitely agree with having a good front office even if it means they drop 5 spots in the draft. I was hoping for more losses but I said many times that if they win because they're just too good at finding under-the-radar guys, that will pay off more than moving up a few spots in the draft. The scouting has been terrific but it's telling that they have traded for so many older prospects and current major leaguers. When people suggest they tanked or something like that, I can't get past the fact that they were successful on such a ridiculously high percentage of those personnel moves and so many of them started paying off so early. I believe it's by design, but since I believe scouting trumps any concerns about whether their strategy was optimal, I'm very happy with the season they just had.
When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.
User avatar
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 19,422
And1: 926
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#63 » by El Duderino » Wed Oct 5, 2016 8:12 pm

coolhandluke121 wrote:I definitely agree with having a good front office even if it means they drop 5 spots in the draft. I was hoping for more losses but I said many times that if they win because they're just too good at finding under-the-radar guys, that will pay off more than moving up a few spots in the draft. The scouting has been terrific but it's telling that they have traded for so many older prospects and current major leaguers.


Stearns traded Lind for three 18-19 year old pitchers in rookie ball. Davis was traded for a 20 year old catcher in A+ ball and a 21 year old pitcher in A ball. Yea Brinson was 22 in AA in the Lucroy trade, but Ortiz was only 20.

Broxton was 25 when Stearns traded for him, but Supek was only in rookie ball and what more could be expected for Jason Rogers? The by far key piece in the Segura trade was Isan Diaz and he was a 19 year old who just finished rookie ball at the time. Hill was a salary dump by Arizona.

The Will Smith trade's main piece was Bickford who was 21 and only in A ball after being picked in the first round last year.

Hader and Phillips were 21 at the time of the Gomez trade.

Other than Brinson, none of the main piece prospects that Stearns traded for have a chance at all of making the team next year and odds are slim at best that he makes the team. Overall though, Stearns has traded for many more younger prospects than older ones near ready to play in the majors.
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 23,434
And1: 771
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#64 » by Kerb Hohl » Wed Oct 5, 2016 8:28 pm

El Duderino wrote:
coolhandluke121 wrote:I definitely agree with having a good front office even if it means they drop 5 spots in the draft. I was hoping for more losses but I said many times that if they win because they're just too good at finding under-the-radar guys, that will pay off more than moving up a few spots in the draft. The scouting has been terrific but it's telling that they have traded for so many older prospects and current major leaguers.


Stearns traded Lind for three 18-19 year old pitchers in rookie ball. Davis was traded for a 20 year old catcher in A+ ball and a 21 year old pitcher in A ball. Yea Brinson was 22 in AA in the Lucroy trade, but Ortiz was only 20.

Broxton was 25 when Stearns traded for him, but Supek was only in rookie ball and what more could be expected for Jason Rogers? The by far key piece in the Segura trade was Isan Diaz and he was a 19 year old who just finished rookie ball at the time. Hill was a salary dump by Arizona.

The Will Smith trade's main piece was Bickford who was 21 and only in A ball after being picked in the first round last year.

Hader and Phillips were 21 at the time of the Gomez trade.

Other than Brinson, none of the main piece prospects that Stearns traded for have a chance at all of making the team next year and odds are slim at best that he makes the team. Overall though, Stearns has traded for many more younger prospects than older ones near ready to play in the majors.


Thank you. As you probably know but were just mentioning - the Gomez trade was Melvin.

For CHL, sorry for not completely understanding your point. That said, it's pretty clear that the Brewers have gone for a complete rebuild of younger players. I actually know several Brewers fans that were very critical of Stearns early on due to the guys he traded for being way too young and unknown.

The main piece(s) in the Cleveland trade that didn't happen were also not really close to the majors.
User avatar
wichmae
RealGM
Posts: 15,033
And1: 632
Joined: Feb 22, 2005
Location: Milwaukee

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#65 » by wichmae » Wed Oct 5, 2016 8:51 pm

San Diego also spent over 100 million in the international market. Theyve been THE most aggressive team so far despite the sleazeball GM.
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 23,434
And1: 771
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#66 » by Kerb Hohl » Wed Oct 5, 2016 9:01 pm

I get that - but he was talking about bottoming out, which international spending has nothing to do with. And we've yet to see what this regime will do in that market in Milwaukee.
User avatar
coolhandluke121
Head Coach
Posts: 7,285
And1: 1,068
Joined: Sep 23, 2007

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#67 » by coolhandluke121 » Wed Oct 5, 2016 9:10 pm

It's not just Stearns I'm talking about but the organization as a whole. I know they traded for some younger players too, but nearly every trade except Davis and Lind resulted in at least one plus-WAR player this year. We don't know what other options were available but based on that Wheeler trade and the rumors that the scouts wanted younger prospects from the Rangers, I suspect there was a slight preference for trying to turn things around faster than most of us thought. I find it kind of uncanny how they had potentially good options at nearly every position and I think it starts with an owner who is saying he's willing to rebuild but wants to be as good as possible at the same time. I'm taking exception to the narrative that the Brewers have tanked or were hoping to lose more this year. That narrative was more a national pundits things, but a lot of projections here had them losing 95+ and I never thought that was realistic unless they had a slew of injuries or made unfavorable trades just to get rid of productive vets as soon as possible. They've been very methodical and deliberate with their rebuild and managed to field a reasonably competent team. Just because they traded a bunch of vets doesn't mean they were willing to be really bad this year. A lot of the guys they traded were overrated or declining anyway, and despite the fact that they were said to be taking a step backwards, it's revealing that they actually improved. And I'm willing to bet that the guy in charge is glad they did.
When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.
User avatar
wichmae
RealGM
Posts: 15,033
And1: 632
Joined: Feb 22, 2005
Location: Milwaukee

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#68 » by wichmae » Wed Oct 5, 2016 9:39 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:I get that - but he was talking about bottoming out, which international spending has nothing to do with. And we've yet to see what this regime will do in that market in Milwaukee.

Yeah I know. Was just interjecting that into the debate.
User avatar
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 19,422
And1: 926
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#69 » by El Duderino » Thu Oct 6, 2016 6:24 am

coolhandluke121 wrote:It's not just Stearns I'm talking about but the organization as a whole. I know they traded for some younger players too, but nearly every trade except Davis and Lind resulted in at least one plus-WAR player this year. We don't know what other options were available but based on that Wheeler trade and the rumors that the scouts wanted younger prospects from the Rangers, I suspect there was a slight preference for trying to turn things around faster than most of us thought. I find it kind of uncanny how they had potentially good options at nearly every position and I think it starts with an owner who is saying he's willing to rebuild but wants to be as good as possible at the same time. I'm taking exception to the narrative that the Brewers have tanked or were hoping to lose more this year.


The Segura trade mainly was about getting the 19 year old Diaz, but Arizona required us to take on Hill so they could shed his 7 million dollar salary.

As for any narrative that Stearns was specifically trying to tank for a really high pick, i don't believe that was his main objective. Instead i simply think he made each individual move for a reason, that the farm system needed to be bolstered, and the big league team younger overall.

Lind was aging and in the final year of his deal. Davis was blocking Santana who needed to play. Segura was blocking Arcia. Rogers was an over-aged nothing special prospect.Lucroy wanted out and keeping him made little sense given he only had one more year left on his deal. Jeffress added to the return for Lucroy.

As for the big league roster this year and going forward, i think Stearns just is one of those GM's who likes to tinker in hopes of finding youngish guys who were talented, but struggled for whatever reason in hopes one or two can turn it around with a change of scenery. There were Villar, Flores, Middlebrooks, Broxton. and Walsh in the Rule 5 draft. Carter i see as a guy Stearns just saw as great value for only two million.

In the end, i think he simply makes moves which he sees as value and then if the players do well, leading to a better than expected record, so be it. Sitting around praying for losses though wasn't his intention. Add talent smartly, get younger, bolster the farm, and see where that leads the team until the better prospects are ready to come up.
User avatar
coolhandluke121
Head Coach
Posts: 7,285
And1: 1,068
Joined: Sep 23, 2007

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#70 » by coolhandluke121 » Thu Oct 6, 2016 1:08 pm

El Duderino wrote:
coolhandluke121 wrote:It's not just Stearns I'm talking about but the organization as a whole. I know they traded for some younger players too, but nearly every trade except Davis and Lind resulted in at least one plus-WAR player this year. We don't know what other options were available but based on that Wheeler trade and the rumors that the scouts wanted younger prospects from the Rangers, I suspect there was a slight preference for trying to turn things around faster than most of us thought. I find it kind of uncanny how they had potentially good options at nearly every position and I think it starts with an owner who is saying he's willing to rebuild but wants to be as good as possible at the same time. I'm taking exception to the narrative that the Brewers have tanked or were hoping to lose more this year.


The Segura trade mainly was about getting the 19 year old Diaz, but Arizona required us to take on Hill so they could shed his 7 million dollar salary.

Lind was aging and in the final year of his deal. Davis was blocking Santana who needed to play. Segura was blocking Arcia. Rogers was an over-aged nothing special prospect.Lucroy wanted out and keeping him made little sense given he only had one more year left on his deal. Jeffress added to the return for Lucroy.

As for the big league roster this year and going forward, i think Stearns just is one of those GM's who likes to tinker in hopes of finding youngish guys who were talented, but struggled for whatever reason in hopes one or two can turn it around with a change of scenery. There were Villar, Flores, Middlebrooks, Broxton. and Walsh in the Rule 5 draft. Carter i see as a guy Stearns just saw as great value for only two million.

In the end, i think he simply makes moves which he sees as value and then if the players do well, leading to a better than expected record, so be it. Sitting around praying for losses though wasn't his intention. Add talent smartly, get younger, bolster the farm, and see where that leads the team until the better prospects are ready to come up.


That's basically what I'm saying, although I'm going a little further by saying they specifically targeted players they thought were going to be respectable this year. There were so many of them that I find it hard to chalk it all up to luck, and it's uncanny how nearly every trade worked out to give them a guy who contributed this year. You can go down the list and give specific reasons each trade worked out the way it did, but when you step back and look at the big picture it's hard to ignore how much immediate help they got in their trades for the past 2 years, whether it involves Melvin or Stearns. I think that's by design. If it was more of an all-out rebuild, I think we would have seen a few more trades like the Lind and Davis deals.

It's also telling that hardly a single player has made us regret trading him away. Maybe instead of implying that the Brewers are rebuilding, we should be saying that they're being better asset managers. Notwithstanding a nice run early in 2014, they were roughly the same quality of team that they've been the last 3 years. It's just a testament to how getting decent players in or close to their primes is just as effective as over-paying aging former all-stars well past their primes. Versatility, youth, and athleticism were also big factors in why they weren't as bad as many people thought this year. I really like the type of player they've been targeting.

SD and Cincy were bad examples. I was struggling to think of teams that have really taken a wrecking ball to their major league roster in recent memory so I could contrast that with what the Brewers have done. Atlanta did it, and I'd say Houston did it several seasons ago. There are some teams that should do it, like LAA for example. But that's really tangential to my point.

I think a lot of observers, on this board and elsewhere, still think of the Brewers as a team in an all-out rebuild with nothing to play for except draft picks. I would have slightly favored a tear-it-down rebuild too, but that doesn't mean that's what the front office is doing. There's a lot of evidence that they're trying to turn it around faster than most people think they will, and I wouldn't be surprised if they improve again next season. And as long as the scouting and execution continues to be excellent and they don't mortgage the long-term future, you won't hear me complain.
When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.
Outlander
Sophomore
Posts: 218
And1: 35
Joined: Feb 14, 2014

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#71 » by Outlander » Thu Oct 6, 2016 3:22 pm

I still don't think there is a lot of evidence they are trying to turn it around faster. They continue to trade for younger, more controllable players. They have also acquired a bunch of players at the major league level that were out of options and had opportunity with the Brewers that they might not have elsewhere. Even an older prospect like Broxton was aquired for even an older player in Rogers and they received a low level prospect in Supak in return as well. They are just trying to hit with some at the big league level and have with the like of Villar and Broxton and have not with the like of Walsh and Flores. They did the same thing when getting rid of Will Smith, they got the pitcher they wanted but also a guy like Susac that hopefully turns into something. Ultimately they are sill building up the minor league system for long term success. I think their goal is to find the diamonds in the rough at the big league level to help them in the future, some may help now and some not but turning it around now isn't the goal.
User avatar
coolhandluke121
Head Coach
Posts: 7,285
And1: 1,068
Joined: Sep 23, 2007

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#72 » by coolhandluke121 » Thu Oct 6, 2016 4:18 pm

Outlander wrote:I still don't think there is a lot of evidence they are trying to turn it around faster. They continue to trade for younger, more controllable players.


You could argue that's a good way to turn it around fast though. No matter which side you're on, you have to speculate on management's intentions from the actions they've taken and the results of those actions. They did trade a lot of veterans, but they also improved as a team, kept some of their veterans, didn't leave gaping holes on the roster, and didn't "settle" in any trades. To me, that looks like the behavior of a team trying to stay competitive. Other than trading Luc, which they obviously had to do, they've hardly made any moves that set them back significantly over the following season. They literally managed to replace pretty much everyone they traded almost immediately.
When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 23,434
And1: 771
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#73 » by Kerb Hohl » Thu Oct 6, 2016 4:37 pm

I don't know who hasn't done this, though. The Cubs nabbed Valbuena (turned into Fowler), Arrieta, Schierholtz (couldn't flip in time), Hendricks (young, but was nearly ready for majors), Coghlan (went back and forth), tried to rehab Olt, Hammel while they rebuilt. The Cubs even dumped a bunch of money into Edwin Jackson when they knew they'd suck maybe thinking they could flip him (I'm guessing here).

The Astros grabbed Fowler for nothing (Lyles had some promise at the time), Rasmus for cheap, Gattis, tried to get something out of Carlos Pena, tried to rehab Erik Bedard, Jed Lowrie, etc. as they rebuilt.

Everyone does this. I'm thinking maybe the Phillies trotted out a roster of total garbage for maybe a year? Even the Braves played Markakis every day, went with Pierzynski who had a good year, Kelly Johnson/Uribe with the intention of flipping, Maybin with the intention of flipping, etc. They could have dealt Freeman for like 5 prospects if they wanted to, but they didn't. Ditto on Teheran this season when his stock was at its peak.

Everyone does it. I can't think of a team that has bottomed out and literally just plays AAA scrubs every day at 6 or 7 positions and most of their pitching staff for several seasons. The Astros did for a period of time, but they still took chances on supporting players in there.
User avatar
coolhandluke121
Head Coach
Posts: 7,285
And1: 1,068
Joined: Sep 23, 2007

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#74 » by coolhandluke121 » Thu Oct 6, 2016 7:31 pm

Yeah, tanking is still not really a thing in baseball and neither are tear-downs. It's all relative to what other rebuilding teams have done, too. I will know a lot more about my theory if they continue to find upgrades in the offseason, even after trading guys like Braun and Garza. It's just a little too convenient that they keep managing to replace everyone they trade away almost immediately. You could argue that the Gomez trade was the signal of the start of rebuilding effort, and they've arguably already managed to improve since then. Whether that's by design or just randomness is anyone's guess, but to me the evidence slightly favors the former.
When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.
User avatar
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 19,422
And1: 926
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#75 » by El Duderino » Thu Oct 6, 2016 9:24 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:I don't know who hasn't done this, though. The Cubs nabbed Valbuena (turned into Fowler), Arrieta, Schierholtz (couldn't flip in time), Hendricks (young, but was nearly ready for majors), Coghlan (went back and forth), tried to rehab Olt, Hammel while they rebuilt. The Cubs even dumped a bunch of money into Edwin Jackson when they knew they'd suck maybe thinking they could flip him (I'm guessing here).

The Astros grabbed Fowler for nothing (Lyles had some promise at the time), Rasmus for cheap, Gattis, tried to get something out of Carlos Pena, tried to rehab Erik Bedard, Jed Lowrie, etc. as they rebuilt.

Everyone does this. I'm thinking maybe the Phillies trotted out a roster of total garbage for maybe a year? Even the Braves played Markakis every day, went with Pierzynski who had a good year, Kelly Johnson/Uribe with the intention of flipping, Maybin with the intention of flipping, etc. They could have dealt Freeman for like 5 prospects if they wanted to, but they didn't. Ditto on Teheran this season when his stock was at its peak.

Everyone does it. I can't think of a team that has bottomed out and literally just plays AAA scrubs every day at 6 or 7 positions and most of their pitching staff for several seasons. The Astros did for a period of time, but they still took chances on supporting players in there.


Even the Twins who finished with the worst record, they weren't trying to lose after being in the wild card chase last year. The Braves also traded for Matt Kemp this year.
User avatar
coolhandluke121
Head Coach
Posts: 7,285
And1: 1,068
Joined: Sep 23, 2007

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#76 » by coolhandluke121 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:36 pm

This seems like a good thread to talk about trade rumors and other roster changes. I guess the Brewers are really asking for something in return for Braun. I previously figured Parker, Williamson, and Pence would be an adequate corner outfield trio at a good price for them, but then Pagan bailed and Parker just went to the 60-day DL, so they have every incentive to make a move for Braun.

http://baseball.realgm.com/wiretap/47187/Giants-Brewers-Have-Discussed-Ryan-Braun-Trade

Man, I argued a lot in this thread about whether the Brewers were really "tearing it down". I still stand by what I said about how they already bottomed out a few years ago because of all the overpaid, older players they had. Now that they're able to find reclamation projects and other under-the-radar acquisitions, I think they're more competitive again. They're not compromising the long-term future to do so anymore, but that doesn't mean they're tanking. So even if it seems like the bottoming-out only started when they gave up on most of their veterans a few years ago, that was actually the low point in a process that had been set in motion by short-sighted moves years earlier. They're trying to win as much as they can without costing them anything in the long term.
When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.
User avatar
JimmyTheKid
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,616
And1: 1,649
Joined: Feb 10, 2009

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#77 » by JimmyTheKid » Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:30 pm

In short, David Stearns is a muthafuggin G. Has he made a single bad move? None of the vets he's traded have done anything. The farm system is completely restocked and saturated with talent. And the Eric Thames signing could go down as one of best deals in MLB history. I'd say Stearns is off to a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good start.
User avatar
miamiflashfan
Sophomore
Posts: 104
And1: 33
Joined: Mar 13, 2010
     

Re: RE: Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#78 » by miamiflashfan » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:54 am

JimmyTheKid wrote:In short, David Stearns is a muthafuggin G. Has he made a single bad move? None of the vets he's traded have done anything. The farm system is completely restocked and saturated with talent. And the Eric Thames signing could go down as one of best deals in MLB history. I'd say Stearns is off to a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good start.

Only moves you could really make arguments for are not protecting Miguel Diaz and the Khris Davis deal, and both of those are questionable at worst. He's done a great job.

Sent from my LGUS990 using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
coolhandluke121
Head Coach
Posts: 7,285
And1: 1,068
Joined: Sep 23, 2007

Re: RE: Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#79 » by coolhandluke121 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:04 pm

miamiflashfan wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:In short, David Stearns is a muthafuggin G. Has he made a single bad move? None of the vets he's traded have done anything. The farm system is completely restocked and saturated with talent. And the Eric Thames signing could go down as one of best deals in MLB history. I'd say Stearns is off to a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good start.

Only moves you could really make arguments for are not protecting Miguel Diaz and the Khris Davis deal, and both of those are questionable at worst. He's done a great job.



The only thing you might be able to disagree with is the trades he doesn't make, but you never know what was available. I am one of those who believes in the value of a few extra losses (not gonna argue about that here) so I wonder whether there were occasions where they could have made some deals sooner and still gotten the same return. Also, I get the logic behind keeping guys like Scooter, Kirk, and Carter and hoping they have a career year and some fool trades a prospect for them, but they struck out on all 3 of them from an asset management point of view and it cost them Diaz and a little draft position.
(ETA: I was disappointed they didn't find an offer they liked for Guerra or Villar in the offseason as well.)

I just noticed that the Braun rumor says the Brewers are asking for good prospects and salary relief. Who the eff cares about salary relief right now? You have about 2 weeks before his full no-trade rights kick in. Unless teams on his current trade list are offering just Scooter-level prospects, I firmly believe they should accept the best offer and probably should have done so in the offseason. Again, the extra losses have to be factored as part of the return in my opinion.

Here's hoping LAD and SF get in a bidding war. We finally have a situation where there are 2 teams on his trade list that are absolutely perfect fits for him. Does anyone know if he changed his trade list by the way? I read that he swapped out one team but nobody knows which one.
When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.
Thunder Muscle
RealGM
Posts: 12,922
And1: 560
Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Location: Wisconsin
       

Re: 2017 Roster 

Post#80 » by Thunder Muscle » Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:45 pm

I'm thinking salary relief may mean the Brewers not having to pay a crap ton of Braun's remaining contract.
TBD

Return to Milwaukee Brewers