Thurston Fluff

Yet no team who has the money has does that. At some point one has to ask why. What is going on that makes every team who has loads of cash take on huge risks? I don't think we can just write it off as they were all stupid. Personally I think it is the same dynamic going on in other big businesses. The CEO is paid on short term gains so he focuses on short term profits. Parallel that with a GM who's job is dependent on short term success. The fans know the team is floating in cash so it is almost impossible to tell them we have to wait until our farm produces good enough of players. You can't be the Dodgers and have a five year rebuild when you have the money to win now. If I had to guess I would think the Cubs will do the same thing in a few years. They will have a bunch of these cheap players up for FA and there will be tremendous pressure to sign them. They have a great farm now but that was very much related to high draft picks for several years in a row. They will not have that over the foreseeable future. So they either have to be exceptional in drafting or go into another total rebuild. How well do you think that will play out in Chicago when the team gets four years of winning and are told they have to suffer through a few hundred loss seasons and at least five years before they become competitive again? Especially when the fans know all they have the money to spend. The money is nice but it puts you in a position where you have to spend it. Thus you are sort of stuck doing things that way. As much as we are stuck doing it the way we do.

I think you have to keep in mind money on only one way to build a championship caliber team. I am not so sure it is the best way. The Royals go back to back World Series and the Cardinals don't go the Boston, LA, NYY route. It seems to me teams who can spend take bigger risks as opposed to finding the best values. Price fits that pretty well to me. The thing about these contracts is the opt out clause shifts a major portion of the risk on the team. Basically he gets the benefit of a short and long term contract with that type of deal. All that risk for the hope, if everything goes right, he earns what he's paid over the next three years. These big contracts with opt out clauses seem like a bad deal for the team to me.

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. That just seems very short sighted to me. How you treat players today effects how they, not to mention others around the league, work with you tomorrow. You need look no further than our last decade. At about the time the Brewers started to contend we couldn't get free agents to come here unless we seriously overpaid them. Thus the Suppan type contracts we saw back then. Melvin treated players who did well right. Then suddenly players like Ramirez and K-Rod wanted to come here and did so for about what you would expect to pay for players of their caliber. Ditto for players on the team like Lucroy and Gallardo signing deals that bought out free agent years. Players don't generally do that if they see players who are doing their job well get jerked around. I think players are ok with guys like Garza or JJ Hardy get shafted because they were not producing. To do that to players who are productive really hurts the team long term. It would be serious step back from the goodwill Melvin built up to start to jerk players around for short term gains. Especially at a time when those gains are not even needed.

I really hope keeping a good player's arbitration numbers down never enters into the thinking of the team. I just don't see how essentially telling a player you couldn't care less about their career helps.

I disagree with this part. Defense only catchers are a dime a dozen. Ones that can contribute anything on offense are not. Hell trading Lucroy and going with Maldonado would upgrade our defense if anything. He was always regarded as the better defensive catcher of the two. He is a very good pitch framer and is much better throwing runners out.

No, probably not. But Ramon Flores was ranked what, >20 in his own organization? I don't like the return, especially at a position as easy to fill as OF/1B. Hopefully Stearns views Flores as being wildly undervalued and he proves me wrong. The past few years experience tends to make me believe first isn't all that easy to fill.

A .657 OPS at Colorado Springs does not strike me as the number a "solid" prospect would put up. Flores could be a very useful bench bat. He and Peterson have all three outfield positions and first base covered. I'm thinking a young Gerardo Parra. Not a bad asset at all. Heck, Flores even had very brief stints at shortstop and third base (granted in the low minors, but if there was a time desperate enough to put him at third or short, nice to know he'd be a desperate measure option). Yes, he had a bad season as a 22-year-old. That entirely negates his former top-100-prospect status, the fact that he was largely the centerpiece of the Gallardo trade, and that he is a good defensive SS/2B. Glad we have a bench corner OF now, just what we needed! At one time Mike Olt was a top 50 prospect as well. Young prospects are graded as much on potential as they are production. Yet the older they get the more their production matters. When production doesn't catch up to the potential as they get older their status changes. His status always relied on the hope his offense would improve. But so far it hasn't. My guess is he isn't considered a top 100 prospect anymore.

Thanks. With Detroit's poor farm system it seems unlikely any other team would want one of their unprotected guys. Wouldn't it make sense to have Detroit pick up a rule 5 guy for us because they really don't have to worry about protecting 40 players? That way we essentially have 41 players protected well into spring if we wanted.

No, I am almost positive that the player must already be named on a list on the current team. Why can't they put him on the list of potential players? I know they can have more than one player listed.

Silly question but if the Brewers wanted a certain player selected in the rule 5 draft but didn't want to take up a spot on the 40 man roster at that point couldn't they have the Tigers select him then make him the PTNL when they are ready for him?

I don't think how ready they are for the majors now is a concern for teams. If a player is better than someone they have and can afford to keep them on the 25 man for enough days before an "injury" happens the team will take him. If someone is taken it means is our farm is doing well.

Younger guys with low ceilings do not suddenly make the major league roster better than having older guys with low ceilings for next season. I do think changing the type of player we get can be interesting, perhaps even make a marginal change in the overall team performance, but these two moves don't move the needle much for next season's outcome.

His actions are just to creepy for me to joke about. I'm guessing his ex feels the same way.

I don't think he is shorting his time spent to trade older guys by doing these when they present themselves. If a trade is there that makes sense there is no need to wait because other trade candidates are of higher priority.

I would imagine this make Shane Peterson expendable. Not unless Flores can play center field. I don't know anything about him but he is listed as a left fielder.

So far one trade was an obvious move to rebuild farm depth while the other give up a farm piece for a major league ready guy. I guess we get to see a rebuild and retool all in the same offseason.

I'm not so sure running up the pitch count for starters is as valuable now as it was in the past. Now days relievers are as good, sometimes better, than the starters are. They may not be able to go through a lineup as many times as the starter but can be better going through it the first time.

FWIW, what you are saying you hope is long behind us was our last playoff team and our first decent chance at a World Championship since 1982. I would not mind having more teams like the 2011 Brewers at any point in the near term. I understand that very well. However the MLB paradigm has flipped dramatically since then even more towards pitching, defense, and young talent While I agree with you that is how teams are winning now I don't think you build your team of the future based on how things are going in the present. By the time these guys get to the majors the paradigm may have changed and we are back in an offense heavy game. It seem to me if we are building for the future based on what people do today we will always be one step behind.

Sarcasm aside, he's the best option they have right now. I'd take him over Herrera or Rivera. Just curious, but why? I was sarcastic because people were losing their minds over this guy. I'm glad he is back because he is another guy that provides some depth. But I do not think he is anything other than a filler. A guy like Herrera, while not young, gives you a guy that can play all over, hits from both sides, and has had success in a Brewers uniform. Why the hate? He is as much of a filler than Perez, possibly even a better player. Possibly the better player? There is no doubt about it, Herrera is the better player right now. I am glad we got Perez back. Stearns move worked to perfection. He will get to play in the minors, where he belongs, and get a chance to realize his potential. We don't waste a spot on the 40 man roster and we can keep third base open for someone who may be good enough to flip for more prospects later on. Hell if Herrera ends up with the job he may show enough to warrant a marginal prospect on his own. It wouldn't be the first time a team traded for a utility man. Especially one who plays as many positions as Herrera and hits from both sides. A team who is in a pennant race and has a shallow bench might give up a low level prospect for him. Granted he will have to show some improvement but he has gotten better since he has been here so it isn't of the realm of possibility.

My point was about your seeming criticism of getting older guys past their prime because they wouldn't be any good anymore. At least that was how I read your comment since it was mentioning players who obviously would not be any good anymore. K-Rod has been very good here. I would gladly sign someone his age to a deal like his if they perform at that level. IF everyone would have been as good as he was last season we would have been good enough to win a pennant. p.s. I love the Ned Yost 1 Mark Attanasio 0 line.

Not at all, Doug Melvin has been our GM What I find unbelievable is that Melvin didn't persuade Dennis Eckersley to come out of retirement and pitch out of the pen for Milwaukee The joke I've often said to my friends is: "don't worry, Mike Trout will become a Brewer.... when he's 39 years old" If we get similar value for old guys as we've had with K-Rod I'd be all for signing more of them.

Very well thought out couple of posts and I agree with most of what you said. I do however, think you are looking at the bullpen in the wrong light with this part. You seem to be more interested in the cost than the quality. If relievers are the upcoming thing then it stands to reason money should be less of a concern than other parts of the roster. If you need a good pen and can get away with average starters save the money on starters and spend it on the pen. If you have a good reliever lock him up before he can get away. Of course that comes with the caveat if the right deal comes along we should take it. It's just I don't think cost should be the motivating factor for why we trade him.

Sure it is if you don't want to lose the player. How are we going to lose Rivera if he isn't in the majors next season?

No matter how you look at it he has three years to develop before we have to decide if he's MLB ready/capable. Similarly he has three years of cheap, pre-arby years when he reaches the majors. To spend any of those when he isn't ready and isn't needed is not a wise way to use a potentially useful player.

I thought Rivera wouldn't need to use an option next season if he wasn't in the majors but I think I am wrong about that. My only argument is he shouldn't be considered an option for the majors next season. We have very little money invested into next season's payroll and don't need a cheap, young player to stay within budget. We could get any old league minimum guy and not waste a year of Rivera when he clearly isn't ready and isn't needed. That may come into play a few years from now when we have to offset the money going to those deferred salaries the Brewers handed out the last couple years. So the choice is to use him before he is ready and get next to nothing out of him in a period when he isn't needed, or let him develop as much as he can and use him when he is closer to what he is really capable of. Presumably during a time when we may be competitive or be in more of a salary crunch. To put him in the majors next season just seems like an awful waste of a resource to me.