Flash

Eloy turns 24 in a week and Burnes turned 26 3 weeks ago so trying to present a 3 yr age difference is BS. Everybody knows Burnes sucked in 2019. What you might not realize is he was on pace for over 6 WAR in 2020. I get dinged here everytime I cite surplus value as a relevant metric but guess who's is higher? I will even go so far as to say, if he stays healthy (big if), he will compete for the Cy Young. I'm okay with the philosophy of some posters that the relative value of an impact bat is worth more than an impact pitcher but let's not suggest Burnes isn't a difference maker. If we could find a way to get him w/o offering Eloy or another core piece, great but as I have already submitted, Burnes would have greater impact on our ability to win now than just about any other current player, including Eloy, and if any one here cares to wager who will finish '21 with higher WAR total (assuming both stay healthy), I'm your man.

I guess I disagree on timing. I think this team is capable of competing for trophy in 21 if we sign 2 impact pitchers. I don't know who those pitchers might be but based on the current landscape, Darvish could very well be one of them and might not be overly expensive in player capital. As to other potential impact pitchers out there, you've got Bauer and a host of arms who may or may not be available in trade.

My final word on the matter...I believe the WS might be 1-2 difference making pitchers from challenging for rings as early as 2021. We all know Bauer is in play but most of us are skeptical we'll attract him (hope I'm wrong). I see no other difference making FA pitchers on the market and believe the path is through trade. I'd speculate Darvish could be available and, if so, I would go aggressively for him. If that is all we add (plus a closer), we can make it interesting but will be heavily reliant on Dunning, Kopech and Cease (assuming none are moved). My view of Corbin Burnes is on record. I think he is better than Woodruff, as do a number of my friends who follow Brewers baseball. To my knowledge, he is not on the market but you don't get if you don't ask. He might be the best pitcher we can hope to target in trade but the best costs. We can quibble about the potential of Eloy and/or Vaughn and their relative value to WS. I get the Eloy love but he is a DH who we hide in LF and, as long as Abreu is around, we have DH covered. You can argue all you want about whether Burnes is the real deal but, if you stipulate he is (as I believe), and there is any chance Brewers would entertain trading him, our chances for a ring in 21 would be significantly stronger than retaining either Eloy or Vaughn...especially if we could also land Darvish, which was the point of my original post. Carry on...

I'm very high on Burnes. I believe he has figured it out and will be among the best pitchers in the game (as he was in '20) for years to come. Of course there is always injury risk but you can't plan trades around it. As for Eloy, I don't disagree he can hit 40+ HRs/yr. and I'd prefer not trading him but can't come up with anyone else, other than maybe TA or Robert who might be of interest to Brewers. If we can package Vaughn as a headliner, I'd do that, but I stand by my belief that Burnes will be worth more wins than any of our positional players with the posible aforementioned exceptions. And if we can pull off acquiring Darvish AND Burnes.......

Not sure why you say that. 25 years old, 4 years of cheap control and among best peripheral metrics among pitchers. If philisophically, you don't trade for pitchers due to injury risk or fears they will forget how to pitch, thats one mans opinion. My point is adding Burnes to the rotation will translate to more wins than the retention of ANY of our positional players with possible exceptions of TA and Robert. I just use Eloy s example because he is of comparable value.

According to what rating system?

When you characterize position players as viable and pitching as volatile as though that is the rule, of course teams shouldn't do it.

Am I that transparent ? Personally, I'd be fine parting with Vaughn in trade but he wouldn't be near enough. Maybe something like Vaughn, Stiever (local kid) plus Flores and fillers. All depends on Brewers priorities (they need positional help everywhere). But, yeah, now that you mentioned it, I'd trade Eloy for Burnes straight up. Doubt Brewers would though.

Respectfully disagree. Darvish for Cease and chum is a no-brainer and if you can somehow trade for Burnes, why on earth wouldn't you?

3 offseason moves for a ring... 1) trade for Darvish...guessing Cease and sweetener gets it done (Rodon seems like a guy Cubs might feel they can wring some mileage out of) 2) blockbuster trade with Milwaukee for Burnes...yes, this will likely require sending Brewers one of our key pieces we are all so emotionally attached to 3) sign Colome and/or Hand These moves likely consume any available budget so we go with what we have in RF which I'm fine with if it means 1) Giolito 2) Burnes 3) Darvish 4) Keuchel 5) Dunning/Kopech The biggest challenge will be to pry Burnes away from Brewers but, if we can get over the initial angst of dealing one of our beloved, this rotation and lineup might win 105-110 games for each of the next 3 years and beyond.

Leaves a hole at 2nd but frees up $24M

Awful lot of energy around a Madrigal trade. Is this still a reaction to Portillo's 'inside info' re: Madrigal to Cubs for Darvish or are we now saying we should try to move Madrigal because there are better 2B options available?

Exactly why there is little demand for Madrigal, let alone as centerpiece of Darvish trade package

Sorry...misread your post.

So Portillos reported that he heard Harold had info on Madrigal being offered at the deadline?

Portillos has mentioned 15 players in tweets since yesterday...not counting Springer and Marquez.

I must have missed the part about offering him up in trade at the deadline. Who did they offer him to and for whom?

There is no reason to believe the Sox would consider trading Madrigal, no reason the Cubs would have interest in him and no reason to believe that PortillosHamburger has any information on anything.

Since you told me to stress it through BTV, I did. Cease and Darvish are of approximately equal SV. That said, Darvish is a win now, top of the rotation stud. Every one of the teams I mentioned would love to have Darvish, hence he will cost more than Cease will straight up. Of course no one knows who will be aggressive in terms of adding payroll in this environment but, as with every opinion offered on this board, we can only make assumptions based upon prior behavior. Otherwise, we might as well just sit back and let Portillos drive the narrative.

With Clevinger TJS and out for '21, Padres will be aggressive. Mets will be aggressive. Angels will be aggressive. Dodgers will likely bid....maybe Red Sox and anyone who misses out on Bauer. If Cubs decide to market Darvish to highest bidder (and why wouldn't they?) The winner will either need to overpay in players or by taking on salary. Darvish finished 2nd in Cy Young voting and, when he is right, is among the best in the game. Darvish, Giolito and Keuchel would be amazing. The problem is there would be little left in the budget for RF, let alone Springer.

Can't see Cubs being interested in Madrigal. Plus, he's coming off of shoulder surgery.

Not sure I take your point. Are you saying Cease and fillers would be too much for Darvish and Kimbrel...assuming Cubs kick in cash? Are you referring to Cease as the former top 20 prospect? If that is what you are saying (I think there is a word missing), I completely disagree.

So would the Cubs

Of course we would take on his salary. Its quite reasonable. My sense is Cubs will want to package him with a less reasonable salary like Kimbrel, in which case we might insist on cash back. I could see Darvish and Kimbrel plus cash for Cease and fillers.

Why would the Cubs include cash to move Darvish? He's a bargain at $20/yr.