monty57

Want to feel a little worse Stache? Since we knew we would not be able to hold on to Fielder, imagine if instead of holding onto him and trading for Greinke and Marcum, we had traded Fielder and Hart for a treasure trove of young prospects (not the "two MLB-ready pitchers" Melvin was asking, which was never a reality) and held onto the guys we traded away. Or, better yet, since Lawrie was apparently traded because he and Melvin didn't get along, imagine if we had traded him for a similarly talented pitching prospect. Yes, we would likely have missed the playoffs in 2011, but we would have likely had a lot more success since then. We'd have the group you mentioned, plus what we received for Fielder and Hart, and we quite possibly wouldn't have had to continually buy 30-something talent in free agency, allowing us the money to extend the good young players we held onto. Too many All-Star caliber outfielders? That's a pretty good problem to have, since you could trade away one or two of them for positions of need. In a fairly recent interview, Melvin hinted that he knew the "window" was 2011-2012 once he made the moves he made. If we were going to do what we did, we should have went full-scale Marlins after getting knocked out of the playoffs in 2011, and sold everything of value. I'm all for rebuilding for tomorrow, but when tomorrow comes, you have to go for it. No you don't You can't endlessly build for tomorrow without the willingness to trade of those "tomorrow" pieces for today. Yes you can. See, I can reply without giving an actual answer as well. However, to put an answer to that, please name me any successful business that has traded away all (or most) of their R&D to increase sales today. To my knowledge, there are none, because that move would eventually bankrupt the business. Immediate gratification feels nice, but it's fleeting. With a perpetual entity, tomorrow will always arrive, so resources always have to go towards making sure that tomorrow is not a torturous wasteland. Selling out a team's future for short term gratification is not smart business sense I've said that same thing many times. I sometimes wonder why I invest so much emotional "capital" into a team run this way, when I would never invest money in any other business run this way... it's doomed for failure! Stache, you blame Melvin, and I wish I could sum it up that simply. In that case, Melvin could easily be fired and the problem would be solved. Unfortunately, the "philosophy" comes from the top, which means Mr. "baseball's simple, you just plug the names into a spreadsheet and they perform" Attanasio is the guy running things like a rudderless ship. He likes putting "name" players on the field so fans will buy tickets, and feels the best use for prospects is as trade chips. Until he decides there needs to be better direction in the organization from top-to-bottom, and that direction has to come from his office, the franchise will not maintain any success. He bought the team at the perfect time: The team had built a new stadium, and Taylor had brought in Jack Z and started building the farm, while gutting the MLB payroll. This allowed for a rapidly increasing MLB payroll at the time young, cheap All Star talent was coming up from the farm. Attanasio is good at building up revenue streams, so he was able to get higher highs in payroll, but other than riding the natural wave that was bound to occur from the talent bustling forth from the farm, Attanasio hasn't done anything baseball-wise that has really helped this franchise. He's taken a franchise that (for lack of a better current comparison) was similar to today's Cubs, and has turned it back into a laughing stock. What's the most laughable is that Brewer fans are ecstatic about making the playoffs. Not winning the World Series... just making the playoffs, and that simple act has justified to many that somehow things have been run correctly.

KC's season was pretty much all because its bullpen was insane. It played EXACTLY into Yost's managerial style: rigid, unchanging player roles. He had his 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, and closer. Never changed. The thing was, those three guys were unhittable last season, so his strategy worked. He fell into a World Series. On top of that, they shouldn't have even gotten past Wild Card game. The A's pulled a massive choke job. Yost isn't a good manager. Absolutely right. The 3 guys in the pen were historically good, probably the best ever by a threesome in the pen in history of the game. They made the Royals, Yost-proof last year. I guess there are two ways to look at this thread. I'm looking at it as more of a theoretical study of "is firing the manager generally an answer, or does it showcase that there are bigger problems with management." Others seem to be looking at it as whether or not Yost and Roenicke were good managers who should have been fired.

I think you're right in their beliefs, but really that's just saying "we're going to keep throwing you ducks and you can coach them into being swans." The Brewers have been extremely streaky for an extended period. I think that has more to do with Melvin's propensity for drafting/signing big power, no discipline guys than it has to do with the team giving up. If that continues, and a consistent philosophy (thanks TheCrew for the word that was eluding me in my posts) from the top down is not instilled, then Counsell can try to coach "his style" of play until he's blue in the face, but the guy who has swung at bad pitches his whole life is still going to swing at bad pitches, and a pitcher with no control will still have no control. In order to instill that "Cardinals style" or whatever other style they want to instill, it has to start much earlier than the MLB level. They have to draft the type players that will fit the team's style, have coaches at all levels of their system instilling that style into the prospects, and finally have a MLB coach who will continue that style on the major league field. Prospects/players who show that they won't fit into that style have to be dealt, regardless of talent. If they happen to be "Shelby Miller/Top 10 prospect" talented, then that just means you'll get a lot of talent back. It goes against what most teams would do, but that's probably a big reason most teams have "windows of success," while a few well-run franchises seem to have a lot more up years than down. On a side note, it's funny that a previous poster mentioned that Attanasio/Melvin's scapegoat for the team "giving up" last year was Mark Reynolds, who was signed by none other than the Cardinals.

I think the problem isn't in who's wearing the manager's jersey, it's that there really isn't any continuity in the system. That has to come from the top. The owner and GM have to make a decision how the team should be built, and they should find people for the organization (players, coaches, scouts, etc) that fit into that system. In the business world, a big buzzword is systematization. Figure out what works, write it down and repeat the process. Make it so simple that the least qualified person can understand it. Build your business to not fail by making sure everyone is working to the same goal using the same process. A good publicized example of this in the baseball world was the A's saying that hitters could not advance through the ranks unless they showed plate discipline. This, I'm sure, was just one piece of their plan. Now, this differs from a team like the Cardinals and Yankees, who seem much more worried about attitude/personal make-up. It's not that there is only one way to do it, it's that the owner/GM have to figure out what their goal is, put the system into place, and build the franchise around that. If the owner/GM do not lay down the groundwork, no manager can be successful.

You cannot lead men when you are the one who will gets replaced if they don't follow. You cannot lead when players know the manager really does not have the power to enforce what he demands of them. I get what you are saying, but I don't know if in today's world of $25MM/year players, the manager will ever be able to be the "field general." If the manager and the superstar are at odds, chances are that superstar will win. The exception to this seems to be the Cardinals, who will get rid of players like Colby Rasmus and Shelby Miller because they don't fit their mold, but that's a mold put in place by the owner and believed throughout the system, not a rule put in place by the manager. So, I guess if the owner has a methodology, and hires a manager to enforce that methodology, the manager will have some element of control (kind of the sargent, not the general). However, if you have an owner who likes picking random names and inputting them into a spreadsheet, expecting the manager to impose the rules to get them to play well together without any real "stick" or "carrot" to dangle, then the person chosen to be the manager isn't really that important, as they are set up for success or failure almost purely based on player performance.

Segura is definitely a sell low guy. I would keep him. Braun continues to confuse. I don't want any part of him the man and that contract, but the guy has had an incredible May, MVP caliber good. I tend to think he has significant trade value now. Offense is hard to come by, and while his contract is crippling to Milwaukee, it is nothing to big market teams. I don't know who is on his no trade list. I have to think some team will look at his May and figure the fresh start will make for a good acquisition. Boston, for example doesn't care about PED's and he would fit in nicely there. LA would as well, though we would need to take OF bad contract back as part of the deal. Braun is a guy who is one swing away from his next oblique DL trip, so if there is a market, and i think there would be, the Brewers need to act now. I would agree on Segura, but it seems that everything I read says that he is one of Milwaukee's big trade chips. There must be some GMs out there that are still looking at his potential and are willing to pay for it. I personally think that Sardinas will give us similar overall production right now, so if we can get a decent return for Segura, we should jump. Another full season of sub-.700 OPS (plus less team control) might drop Segura's value. Any trade of Braun would be to get out of the later years of the deal and deferred payments. He should be better than he's being paid for a while, but paying him that much when he's in his mid-to-late 30's, and paying him for years after he's retired will really hurt the Brewers in the future. It's kind of mind-boggling to think that we'd trade him before the extension even begins, and it would certainly change the team, but it definitely should be considered.

Are you thinking of Ben Hedrickson? If so, didn't he have a family member that posted on this site at one point? I remember them being some "legendary" rants of some sort. If you are referring to Mark Hendrickson, then disregard. Yeah, his dad posted here, and when Ben was traded went on a rant about what a terrible organization this was, and how he was destroying anything he had that was Brewer-related. I remember a lot of high expectations for him (Ben, not his dad), but when he got to the majors his big overhand curve was never called for a strike, so his mid-to-high 80's fastball got rocked. Going back in time.......when I was a kid...... I thought Billy Jo Robideaux was going to be our first baseman for years to come. Of course I wasn't even a teenager yet. I just saw the guy's minor league stats and they were MONSTER. Of course I had no idea that even I could have hit 20 homers at El Paso. Also, he had a boss name. He and Joey Meyers were the first names I thought of when I saw this post. I thought their inflated Denver numbers would have been enough for the Brewers to never put a AAA team in Colorado again.

I think it's a bit premature to say any of those three are going to have any larger return than the incredible amount of talent our last rebuild effort got us. A few guys get hurt or turn out to be incredibly average and the dynasty is short lived. You know who doesn't tear everything apart start over? The Cardinals. It isn't a coincidence that they remained competitive throughout several Cub and Astro rebuilds. I would gladly follow their model. I believe it starts with the type of player they want to bring in (baseball skills and attitude). This type of player is diametrically opposed to what Melvin seems to want to bring in, which seems to be big power bats with no plate discipline, big armed pitchers with no control, and guys who were no longer welcome with their previous teams because of their attitudes. If we get rid of our management team and replace them with someone high up from the Cardinals system, that would be a start. Then we'd need to replace most of our coaches and scouts throughout the system to find people to teach "our way" of doing things. Then, we'd still need a rebuild to bring in the type of players we want into the system. There would be very few players left, so it would take a long time, but it could be done. Then, we'd have a system full of disciplined guys who understand basic fundamentals of baseball. That's at least a plan to follow. Much better than the "find a name you know and plug his stats into a spreadsheet" model Attanasio seems to employ.

But honestly, right now does it matter if we put a "hot player" on the field? We're not winning, and not going to be a playoff team, so as we trade away some players (whether we go all in or not), we should really just let some young players get their feet wet and showcase their talent at the MLB level. If they don't feel that Taylor is ready, finish the year with Schafer at CF. Maybe we can finally get an idea on whether he's a valid backup OF candidate or a guy we should jettison. We need to stop worrying about whether a move we make this year will hurt us for the rest of the year. The rest of the year doesn't matter... that's why we're trading guys away.

I think that this injury gets someone to the big leagues earlier, but before too long both Lohse and Garza will be traded, and we'll have plenty of opportunity to try our minor leaguers out at the big league level. Jungmann and Thornburg are as ready as they'll ever get to pitch in a MLB rotation, so they'll finally get their shot to show what they can do.

From the article on the Brewers' site, if they go with Fiers on short rest, they won't need the 5th starter spot for a while, giving them a chance to jigger the AAA rotation to bring up the guys they want. That seems to me to be the better option, unless they really want Blazek in the rotation over someone like Thornburg or Jungmann, which is a possibility. Injuries in the rotation are never ideal. I am glad they took Thornburg out of the MLB bullpen and back to the AAA rotation for just this reason. They've been very lucky with starters' health for quite a while, but they were destined to need a "#6 starter" eventually. Better for him to be stretched out at AAA.

I think everyone can agree that Lohse, Parra, Ramirez and Broxton (guys who will be gone next year) should be traded for what ever we can get. It also appears that the Brewers are very interested in trading Garza. Therefore, the difference between the "blow it up" crowd and the "go for it one more time" crowd rests on three players: Carlos Gomez. One of the best CF in the game, who has put up MVP caliber numbers over the recent past. Should we trade him? Pro: We only have him for one more season, and we are very unlikely to be able to extend him any further, as he'll be a $20MM+ guy. He could bring back several very good prospects in trade. Con: Without him our chances for the playoffs next year go from slim to none Jean Segura. Plays solid defense with potential to be a good offensive player. Only in his final pre-arby year, so still has 3+ years of "team control," but has turned down extension offers in the past. Should we trade him? Pro: This is our deepest position, with Sardinas MLB ready, and Arcia nearly MLB ready. The dropoff from Segura to Sardinas probably wouldn't be that great. Teams appear to have a fairly high value on Segura. Con: We could miss out on the upside if he finally puts it together. Sardinas may not pan out, and SS is a hard spot to fill. Jon Lucroy: One of the best catchers in the game, and probably the current "face of the franchise." Seems to help the pitching staff a lot with his framing ability, as well as being a very good hitter. Should we trade him? Pro: He could bring back as much as Gomez in trade, so trading both of them could make for a shorter, more successful rebuild. Con: He would be the most difficult to replace, and trading him would mean we were in full-scale rebuild. So really, that's it. Not to sound overly dramatic, but the fate of the franchise really depends on what we're going to do with these three guys. Trade all of them, we're not good next year (maybe for a few years), but we'll have a much stronger farm. Trade none of them, and we're better next year, but lose Gomez for nothing after the season. Or, do the most likely route, which is trade one or two and "play the middle ground," strengthening the farm some while at least giving the impression that we management is trying to field a competitive MLB team.

You're aware of how negotiation works aren't you? Very, and the term "unavailable" is a whole lot different than "we really don't want to move him," or "we really like him." "Unavailable" is the end of the negotiation. Now, in the past Melvin has said that he picks a few teams who he think match up well, and only calls them. Maybe he just saw it was Atlanta on the other line and didn't like any of their prospects, and he could be "available" if a different team called. This isn't the first hint that Lucroy wasn't going anywhere, that Lohse and Garza aren't in demand, or that Segura is desired, but the Brewers aren't looking to move him. Segura should be traded, and I think there's a chance it will happen, but I'd be shocked if Lucroy is moved. If either/both are pitching well at the time there will be teams who need/want another vet in their rotation due to injuries, etc. I have no doubt Lohse will be traded, but I doubt they get much other than salary relief and a mediocre prospect in return. Meanwhile, it seems the Brewers want to trade Garza, but his contract looks to be viewed as a negative. Trading him probably signifies that they are worried about future revenues and want to eliminate his salary, so it will be interesting to see if they eat any of his salary to bring back a prospect, if they salary dump him, or if they just hold onto him because neither of the previous options are acceptable. The only way they will bring back meaningful return is to give up some pieces other teams want, and Gomez looks to be the main piece the Brewers are leaning towards moving. Other than hoping to sell a few more tickets, I don't get why you would trade away Garza and Gomez, but hold on to the other guys. It's not like they will be good with no pitching and no Gomez, so if they're going to jump in, jump in all the way.

From CBS Sports: by Michael Hurcomb | CBSSports.com (3 hrs ago) With catcher Christian Bethancourt having a poor start to the season, the Braves inquired about Brewers starting catcher Jonathan Lucroy, according to CBSSports.com Baseball Insider Jon Heyman. However, the Braves were told he was unavailable. Bethancourt began the season as the Braves starting catcher, but he was quickly replaced by veteran A.J. Pierzynski after he struggled at and behind the plate. and Rival teams suggest veteran pitchers Matt Garza and Kyle Lohse have limited trade value. If anything, Lohse is generally preferred, for the expiring contract and excellent clubhouse presence ... Jean Segura was said to have been unhappy to go on the disabled list, but rivals are still skeptical whether Milwaukee would trade him, Lucroy (the Braves were among teams to try there) or perhaps even Carlos Gomez, though Milwaukee seems slightly more open to Gomez than the other two, due to his contractual status as a free agent after 2016. So they're looking to trade Lohse and Garza, but no one will give them anything for them. There is a slight chance they'll deal Gomez, probably won't deal Segura and won't even listen to an offer when someone calls desperate for Lucroy. Yeah, the future looks really bright.

But stop trying to pretend that baseball is the type of sport where teams can't play way above their talent level for big chunks of time. Was that aimed at me? I just said the 2002 Brewers won 10 in a row, so anything can happen. I've also continually said that if left alone this year's team should heat up and end up near .500 (although the longer this bad play goes on, the more remote a .500 record will be). But, also having watched baseball for a very long time, it seems obvious that the Brewers for the past few years have been losing talented players and replacing them with less talented players, while still increasing the payroll. We sacrificed the future for the present, and now the future is here. It's time to change tack and start looking to the future. Sure, the team's playoff chances are not statistically zero, but holding out hopes to defy the odds and somehow make the playoffs this year is a fool's errand that would only hurt the franchise. And there's always next year, right? Well, we'll lose our opening day starter and cleanup hitter to free agency, as well as our fourth OF, who has around an .850 OPS in pretty regular playing time this season. According to MLBtraderumors, we are also actively trying to move Garza, so we will effectively lose 2/5 of our rotation and our 3B with no standout prospects in line to replace them. As it stands, our rotation should be well below average next year, and there is no chance we're going to get an ace in free agency to change that. This is a team that going into this season was reasonably projected to be around a .500 team, which is currently losing about 2/3 of the games they're playing, and even though we're set to lose some key pieces with no one in line to replace them, we are somehow supposed to believe that our chances for the playoffs next year will be so good that we should not instead play for the future? So please stop trying to pretend that while teams can defy the odds, that it is a good strategy to expect to defy the odds. If you continually try to defy the odds, you will lose. That's why the casinos make so much money.

The 56 win 2002 Milwaukee Brewers had a 10-game win streak, so anything can happen. That said, it is extremely unlikely that this year's Brewers will play well enough to do anything but hurt their draft positioning, so Invader's point stands. We're not a playoff team, and probably won't be next year either, so the time has come to sell some assets to re-stock the system.

Sardinas gives the Brewers the ability to trade Segura while he's apparently in demand, and hold down the fort at SS at the MLB level until Arcia takes over in a year or two. In this regard, he is great for the Brewers: (1) allows a good trading chip to be traded (2) provides "MLB caliber" play during the early stages of the rebuild (3) could prove to be worthy of an extension, or could be traded when more talented prospects reach the MLB level. I honestly don't think we will take any kind of a step back in going from Segura to Sardinas, so if we can get a good package in trade for Segura I'm all for it. Plus, if Segura demands a good return, then I would think Sardinas could get us a good return in a couple of years when Arcia takes over.

If that means kick him in the nuts and send him packing, I'm all for it :-)

Opening Day 2017 CF: Carlos Gomez Gomez will be gone via free agency, and that is the reason people like me think he should be traded. What he's worth in trade is far greater than seeing him in a Brewer uniform for one more season when there is little hopes for the playoffs. 3B: Ryan Braun In his youth, Braun was rated the worst defensive 3B in 100 years. Many good defenders move off of 3B as they get into their 30's, so the odds of Braun going back to third in his mid-30's are about the same as the odds of us trading for Prince Fielder to put him at center field or catcher.

His splits are .968 vs RHP and .584 against LHP. Are you sure about that? Wow, didn't realize that. He was hitting them better early. I guess things change quickly in a 23 AB sample set :-) I also don't think they are "desperately" trying to get rid of Garza. I got that from blurbs like this from MLBtraderumors: "Kyle Lohse seems like a natural candidate to be traded this offseason, but the Brewers are particularly interested in shedding Matt Garza‘s contract. " No but there was a lot of "our minor leagues are not as bad as people are saying because we are bringing up guys like Gennett and Davis." Yeah, that's really what I was getting at. For quite a while, the Brewers' top prospects projected to be guys who could have some success at the MLB level, but probably wouldn't be stars. My concern for quite a while has been that the Brewers have been losing talented players and replacing them with less talented players, while all the while getting more expensive. That can't lead to a good place. Look at guys like Bryant and Syndergaard and it's easy to see why people who get paid to rate prospects put the Brewers' farm near the bottom. We don't have anyone even close to that good in our system, and we need to find them if we ever want to get back to the position of being serious playoff contenders. Spending a good portion of the payroll on guys who are past their prime, and staying under payroll budget by giving so-so prospects starting jobs isn't the way to reach the promised land. That they are "particularly interested in shedding Matt Garza's contract" gives me hope that Attanasio is finally realizing this. Garza is key, because they wouldn't trade him if they were interested in trying to compete next year. With that knowledge, it makes sense that they will shop not only the dregs and free-agents-to-be, but also guys who could bring some real talent back into the system. To topic, Lind wouldn't bring back as much as a Gomez or Lucroy, but he has a good bat, and could really help a team's playoff chances, so that's worth something.

but two quality 3/4's for the stretch run should bring a really nice prospect back. Nothing about Garza or Lohse has screamed "quality" this year. I hope they can pitch better, and they have done so in the past, but right now, teams have reason for concern. Lohse is pitching better recently, and has a short-term (less risk) deal, but I still wouldn't expect much from him. We would have received a lot more this past offseason... possibly similar to what we got back for Gallardo, but that ship has sailed. Now we're probably looking at just trading him to get salary relief. Garza needs to pitch much better or teams will run away. Who wants to get stuck with a multi-year deal for a guy with 8 HR and 22 BB in 45 IP? 1.58 WHIP/5.72 ERA!! He has a decent track record, and should be better than this, but is that a risk you want to take, especially if asked to give up quality prospects to get him?

but it's still just a 20 game stretch and you don't conclude you have no hope going forward based on that Just like you don't conclude you have a playoff team based on a hot stretch to start last year. We're losing Lohse, Ramirez, and Parra, and seem to be desperately trying to rid ourselves of Garza. The guys everyone was calling studs (Gennett and Davis) are proving that the scouts were probably right about them. They, like most of the Brewer minor leaguers, are guys that can have a MLB career, but aren't special. There are a few guys in the system with upside, but they still have a lot to prove, and our best prospect (Arcia) is sitting in our deepest position. We don't have any Braun's or Fielder's (or in today's vernacular Syndergaards or Bryants) in our system, and we need to find some of them somewhere. Our best chance at finding them is in realizing that our playoff hopes for the near future are extremely slim, so we should use our premiere trading chips to bring in elite prospects. To topic with Lind, he is sporting an OPS over .900 and has been tearing things up all year. Getting off the turf seems to have helped his recurring back problem, which has not been an issue this season. He is also disproving the theory that he is strictly a platoon player, as he is hitting well as an everyday guy for Milwaukee. Plus, Toronto had too many players to fill the 1B/DH roles, so he was expendable. I know we got him cheap, but I would think that he has greatly improved his trade value, and 1.5 years of his service should now be appealing to any team looking to add a powerful left-handed bat to their lineup. He was a good find by Melvin, but his best value to the team right now should be in trade.

Mets would be crazy to deal Syndegaard for Gomez. But then again the Mets do make plenty of perplexing personnel moves This is where the whole trade world gets crazy. When you are looking at mega-talented players, it's tough to figure out the value, and no one wants to be the loser on a deal like this. I don't think it's "crazy" to think that a proven MVP-caliber player with 1.5 years left on a ridiculously low contract should get elite value in return, but I also agree that Syndergaard has tremendous value. Gomez could be a good mid-season trade candidate, as he's the type of player that could get GM's and owners salivating, and also worried that their competition would get him. It's their shot at a franchise-altering deal, so I just hope that if they do trade Gomez they don't blow it.

Their rotation will be something like Peralta, Fiers, Nelson, Jungmann, Thornburg. They will not win with that, so they should cash in on the treasure-trove of talent they'll get from a Gomez trade instead of losing him for a comp pick when he leaves for free agency. They have been getting less and less talented every year since 2011. Due to a bit of luck in snagging Gomez in the Hardy trade, and his being a late blooming All Star instead of a bust, they have a chance at making their rebuild less painful. If they try to "go for it" again next year, they will have wasted that chance, and pretty soon they will have little of value to trade. That will be when a rebuild is very long and painful.

I agree that Broxton stinks and shouldn't be the "setup guy," but as soon as someone else is put there and blows a lead, people will get up in arms that we're using {insert "unproven" guy's name} when have a "proven" guy like Broxton on the team.