monty57

Does anyone know how long after the World Series ends both sides have to make their respective decisions?

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/30693879-419/jake-peavy-jon-lester-have-eye-on-cubs-as-package-deal.html#.VE_r5VN0yUk Jake Peavy says he's very close friends with Jon Lester, and the two of them would like to go to the Cubs to play with Maddon, who seems likely to end up in Chicago. It looks like the Cubs think the time is now to start adding to their talented young core and competing on the MLB level. If they land Lester and Peavy (and probably others) they will be a pretty decent team. I bring that up in this thread because the Brewers could very easily end up at the bottom of the division this year, while sporting the least talented farm system in the division. Even though Attanasio talks about "two paths," I would be shocked if they don't go all in this year in what very well could be their last hurrah before losing Gallardo and Lohse and starting a massive rebuild. I just hope they don't sign any free agent contracts this offseason that will be hard to unload.

A little healthy competition is good. Very early to speculate, but if Ramirez is gone, we could see both Jimenez and Rogers on the roster, with one starting at 3B and one the backup 1B/3B/power bat off the bench. This sure looks like a great pick-up...I like it, can't hurt... Agreed. Whether he's starting or a bench player, adding an MLB-ready guy with six years of inexpensive team control is a good thing. If this works out, it could fill a huge organizational hole.

Here's the answer to the thread's headline: http://m.brewers.mlb.com/news/article/99812968/brewers-grab-third-baseman-luis-jimenez-off-waivers-from-angels 26-year old Luis Jimenez claimed off waivers from the Angels. Last year at AAA he batted .286 with 21 home runs, 34 doubles and 12 stolen bases in 469 at-bats.

I think it's "big money or bust." Sounds to me like he would have stayed in Tampa if they would have paid what he's asking. It wasn't that he "wasn't happy" there. If the Brewers dumped Roenicke and offered the money Maddon was asking from Tampa, he'd likely listen. However, I think he and Roenicke coached together in LA, so he may not want to be the reason his friend gets fired. But much bigger than that is whether it's worth it for a team like the Brewers to dish out big money to their manager. Is the relative value of Maddon over Roenicke worth the significant money it would cost, or could that money be better used elsewhere? My guess is that he'll go to the Cubs, who have plenty of money and would love to have a big name manager for the fans to fawn over. He is a good manager, so if he does go there, that will make it even harder for the Brewers to compete in their division in the foreseeable future. That could be a reason for the Brewers to make a play for him, but it's much more likely he just goes to Chicago where he will be looked at as a hero as the team starts winning games after a sustained period of losing.

I think the question is why they continue to be good and reach/win WS, not just why did they beat us out this year. Just off the top of my head, they have "grown" Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Posey and Sandoval on their farm. Having a core of dominant pitching with a couple of good hitters has been their calling card. Most free agents and trades have been for complementary pieces to supplement their home-grown core. The cash advantage they have over the Brewers has went to these veteran complementary pieces, and to extend their homegrown talent. However, while they may win the title this year, they weren't a dominant team, and it's likely their reign is coming to an end. They'll probably lose Sandoval, Morse, Peavy, Romo, and Vogelsong, and are still obligated to $127.278MM to those they still control, not including arby raises to guys like Belt, Arias, Blanco, Petit and Crawford. This year's payroll was $149MM. Their farm is probably worse even than the Brewers'. Bleacher Reports did a farm ranking after the trade deadline this year, and had the Giants at #27, one spot behind the Brewers. They will still have a pretty good roster, headlined by some of the best players in baseball, so I don't expect them to fall off a cliff, but they're probably going to start a period of decline. So, as someone else said, they did things similarly to the Brewers' strategy, they were just better at it, and had extra money (the strategy really only plays well for bigger money teams). Their farm produced both dominant pitching and dominant hitting. While they were able to extend their best players, most of our best players walked and most of our extensions were to second-tier guys. Their trade for Pence was a long-term fix, whereas our trades are short-term patches. Their free agent pick-ups are for good players to complement their "core," while our free agent pick-ups are expected to be our "core." When they call up a so-so prospect like Crawford, it's nice if they do well, but not necessary. When we call up a so-so prospect like Davis or Gennett, we base our hopes on them playing above expectations As expected, there is always some "good luck," like Morse having a good season, and some "bad luck," like Lincecum falling from graces after being the best pitcher in baseball for a few years, but the bottom line is that the Giants have a solid MLB baseball team that played about to expectations this year. They will lose a lot of talent when the World Series is over, and will have a hard time replacing it, but should still have a competitive team, albeit aging and expensive, so they'll have to hope to tread water (at a high water-level mark) while some of the big contracts come off the books and the farm rebuilds. Meanwhile, the Brewers played well over expectations, so they could fall into the "fluke" category. Comparing them to a team that made better use of the same team-building strategy hurts. San Francisco shows the strategy can be successful (at least over a relatively short-term), but it sure helps to have a better group drafting and developing talent, a much bigger payroll to make up for mistake signings at the major-league level, and a longer-term look at everything.

I agree with this. Lohse has value. Probably equivalent to what Marcum had at time of his trade. Lohse is relatively cheap and has a 3+ ERA. That is a definite plus arm someone would be adding into the rotation. If someone wanted him, they would be giving up one of their top 2 guys to get him. (A la us and Lawrie) Not a contradictory argument at all. Lohse is 36. Gallardo is 28. All other things being close to equal, teams would likely give up less to get Lohse than Gallardo due to the age difference -- the same point many posters have made in several related threads. Sorry, I didn't realize you were saying "less trade value than Gallardo." I thought you were saying he had little trade value. I agree that Gallardo should have greater trade value than Gallardo, but it really depends on the other team. A team looking to win now that wants veteran leadership and stability may favor Lohse, while a team looking to extend the player beyond one year would favor Gallardo. Either way, I think one of them should be traded, and I think we could get decent value back for either of the players. I'd really hate to see us hold onto both of them and watch both walk away as free agents after the season for no return.

There is a "middle ground" in this, which is to sign someone like LaRoche to appease the ticket buyers, while trading one of our soon-to-be-free-agent starters for a young 3B. I like Reilly's idea of targeting Boston, who have a lot of young 3B, but may appease their own fan base by going after Sandoval this offseason. In this case, Rogers could be a nice bench bat/backup corner IF while Nelson gets a spot in the rotation and we've locked up 3B, where we don't currently have a long term answer, for the next six years. LaRoche is old, but not ancient, so a 2-3 year deal wouldn't kill us, while overall we're getting younger and we exchange a guy who would walk for nothing at season's end into a long-term solution.

Not saying your premise is wrong, but you sure cherrypicked those stats. Greg Maddux - Age 20 & 21 seasons Curt Schilling Age 21 & 22 with a total of 9 appearances in those two seasons you throw that era out for Ben Sheets Age 22, 23, 24 So out of those, Randy Johnson is the only comparable age-wise to Nelson. And I find it curious you left out his few appearances his first season with a good era, but would include them for Schilling. I just quickly looked up the first few names that came to my head when I thought of recent good pitchers, and the Brewers' most recent good home-grown pitcher. Just showing that it's not a good idea to give up on a promising young player because of a slow start, especially in a small sample. I doubt Nelson will end up in the Hall of Fame, but there's reason to believe that he will be a capable MLB starter if given the chance.

If Ramirez continues to age, and if age affects him like it affects all other humans, it is very possible that even a so-so prospect like Rogers could match his total value this season. I just see this ending badly. My best guess right now is that the Brewers will exercise their option, and will work a deal that in exchange for Ramirez declining his option (saving the Brewers $4MM), they'll sign him to a 2-year deal. By around midway through season one, they'll wish they hadn't signed the deal, and by season two, fans will be be calling for the team to DFA him. If Ramirez is a Brewer in 2015, I hope they have a decent backup third baseman, and I hope Roenicke has the wherewithal to give him plenty of days off to keep him fresh. I don't have a lot of faith in that happening.

The fact is that Nelson totally stunk the longer he was in the rotation, and then was really no better out of the pen. For all the reasons touted above and his legit showing in AAA this year, the net is that he's a mixed bag. Greg Maddux rookie year 5.52 ERA, year two 5.61 ERA Randy Johnson was traded away from Montreal in year two with a 6.67 ERA and 1.85 WHIP Curt Schilling rookie year 9.82 ERA, year two 6.23 ERA Ben Sheets first three years 4.76, 4.15, 4.45 I just pulled up a few pitchers that came to mind right away. Nothing scientific, but I think it's awfully premature to make a judgement on a young pitcher off of a few bad outings at the end of an otherwise stellar year. Unfortunately, I think that's what a large number of Brewer fans want and Brewer management play to this crowd because they buy tickets. Gennett and Davis looked good in a month's worth of big league PAs at the end of 2013, so they're given starting jobs and everyone cheers and expects them to be superstars. Nelson, who is far more talented than either of the above players will get stuck in the bullpen because for some reason we can't trust the guy because of a few bad starts. By the time he (and Thornburg) are "proven" enough for Brewer management and fans to trust them, they'll be in their arby years. Meanwhile, the guys who should be traded this offseason to let Nelson start will leave for free agency and we will get nothing in return. Then we'll continue to hear that there is nothing we could do to improve our farm... it's all the fault of bad drafting. Lohse is showing no signs of slowing down yet. He'd also net us less of a trade return. So he's showing no signs of slowing down, meaning that he's good enough for our "contending" team, but no other team would see any value in him in regards to trade. Contradictory argument. To topic, basically I think Ramirez will be back, although I don't really want him back at the price he'll be paid. With him, I don't think we have much of a shot at the playoffs, but if he leaves I don't think the Brewers will be able to fill all the holes in their roster. So, as I've said for a while, the offseason depends on the Ramirez situation, and to answer the "who should be 3B if Ramirez isn't back" title of the thread: If Ramirez isn't coming back, the Brewers should take a step back in 2015 to be much better in 2016 and beyond. They should trade away the guys who are going into the final year of their contract (Lohse, Gallardo, Broxton) and possibly Gomez, and let guys like Rogers, Nelson, Fiers, Henderson, Thornburg, Davis, Segura, etc play to determine if they are going to be part of the next upswing that will start as our young prospects get MLB ready (supplemented by the big inflow of talent from the aforementioned trades). Note that I don't think this is likely, because Brewer brass is worried about ticket sales falling, but I think it's our best bet to have a playoff caliber team in the not-too-distant future. The past few years have shown that with the 2nd wild card team, if you spend money and put together an average-ish MLB team, you should be around .500 and if things go your way, you could get into the playoffs. That was the purpose of adding the 2nd wild card (keep more fans interested throughout the season), and from that aspect it's been a huge success for MLB.

Could we really expect to do any better than say Aram at 3rd and LaRoche at 1st All the Attanasio hot air and fan questionnaires notwithstanding, I think this is the most likely scenario. The Brewers will feel compelled to exercise their side of the Ramirez option ("hey, we already owe him $4MM, so what's another $10MM?"), so Ramirez will either exercise his side for one year, or they will get together on a two-year deal for more money, but less per year (Melvin will see this as a coup, as he's paying less this year). We won't trade any pitching, but rather will stick Nelson in the bullpen, where Roenicke will make sure he will either get 82 appearances or blow his arm out trying. Assuming the surgery works, Braun will be better, but Ramirez will continue to slide, and age will also catch up with Lohse. Segura will improve from the horrible offensive season he had this year, but the lightning-in-a-bottle we caught with Gomez and Gennett will be over and their numbers, while not horrible, will be far less than most will expect. All in all, we will once again have a relatively expensive team that is up and down and ends up around .500 at season's end. Then we'll lose Gallardo, Lohse, Broxton and possibly Ramirez for nothing at season's end, at which point everyone will discuss what veteran free agent we can pick up to "solve our problems and get us to the playoffs in 2016."

14 total months 4 of those months were awesome. > .750 OPS (3 SS did this in 2014) 3 months were great .670 - .750 OPS (10 SS did this in 2014) 2 months were ok .600-.670 5 months were horrendous There were only 21 SS in baseball who qualified with enough PA's. Of those, 13 ended the season with an OPS over .670, so 62% of qualifying SS were over .670. Segura was #20 (of 21) in OPS beating only Zack Cozart. Overall, he's been pretty bad at the plate since midway through 2013. That said, I'm pretty sure he'll be the starter in 2015. However, if we continue with the Attanasio "go all in all the time" approach, then it makes sense to look at replacing a player who has hit well below the acceptable level for the past season-and-a-half. Lets fix first base please. (We ranked 28th out of 30 teams in OPS and 29 out of 30 in OBP) or look at LF where we ranked 25th out of 30 teams in OBP. I agree that we have a lot of holes to fill. We probably won't be able to adequately fix first base, left field, shortstop and potentially third base, and we don't know how Braun will react to surgery or Lohse or Ramirez will play at their advanced age. We don't know if Broxton will be an adequate closer or if Thornburg will be healthy. We don't know if Gomez is really an MVP-caliber player, or if we caught lightning in a bottle and his second half decline (.880 OPS pre All-Star, .763 post All-Star) will continue. Same with Gennett (.828 vs .621). We don't know how Lucroy's body will hold up after playing basically every day at a grueling position for the past few years. Heck, at this point we don't know if we even have a third baseman. I could go on. This is why I'd like to trade away a couple of guys this offseason and use 2015 as a year to let guys like Segura, Rogers, Davis, Fiers and Nelson show us whether or not they are capable MLB players. I realize there is slightly better than 0% chance Attanasio will do this, but I think it's the way to go.

If the Brewers would take the "step back to take two steps forward" approach and target 2-3 years down the road, then Davis in LF and Parra in CF is perfectly fine for a season. At least they're really MLB players, which is a lot better than most "rebuilding" teams get, plus it gives Parra the opportunity to shine so he can be flipped at the deadline. So, if Gomez, Gallardo, Lohse and Broxton could bring us back young talent that could really help us in 2-3 years as some of our other promising prospects are getting MLB-ready, I'd be all for it. Other than Gomez, all of the other players would be gone after 2015 anyways, so really all the Brewers would be doing is saying "we don't think we have a playoff team this year, so we're going to give ourselves a better chance of having a playoff team in the near future." However, I don't think Attanasio could ever do this, so it's far more likely that we add a couple of "names" to big contracts and continue the same discussion next offseason that we've had the previous few offseasons, wondering why the team "fell apart," and what magic cure is out there to vault them to the World Series next year.

This is a good example of why I don't like using Present Value/Future Value to judge a contract. People love the idea of paying less today and putting the payment off to the future, and argue that the money will be worth less at that point, so it's a great deal for the team. That works in an economics textbook, but reality can slap you in the face when put into practice in real life. Melvin structured Ramirez's deal the way he did so that he could get him in under budget in 2012, when the team still had Greinke, Marcum and Gallardo heading up their rotation. Because there was no payroll room left, he took something like $6MM that year, but got a lot more in years two and three, and got the $4MM buyout. So if you want to judge a contract by PV/FV, the theory would be to just write the $4MM off as a discounted payment on the 2012 payroll. Of course, real life doesn't work like that. The team spent all it could in 2012, and now they have to build the 2015 roster. Potentially losing around 5% of your payroll because you tried to win three years ago hurts your chances to win now, as does overpaying someone simply because "we already owe him $4MM, so we might as well pay him the extra $10MM."

The best case scenario is the Brewers bring him back for next year and they make a run in the playoffs. A better case is the Brewers don't bring him back, but rather find a young, inexpensive corner IF who they will control for six years (potentially obtained through a trade of Gallardo or Lohse). With some of the savings from not paying Ramirez and Gallardo/Lohse, they sign a younger corner IF (Sandoval?) and these guys help the Brewers make several runs in the playoffs over the next half-decade rather than putting everything into next year, after which Lohse, Gallardo, Broxton and Ramirez will all leave for nothing.

Not that Kotsay was anything close to a center fielder, but I was at the previous game, and Morgan looked horrible in center, misplaying several balls in what turned into a blowout. I would guess that's what prompted the much maligned decision to put Kotsay out there.

The Brewers have the first call, which is whether to pick up his $14 million option or buy him out for $4 million. That sucks for them. It would be much easier for the team if Ramirez made his decision first. If the Brewers decline the option, it's a no-brainer for Ramirez to exercise his side and get $4MM extra, no matter where he plays next year. If the Brewers exercise their side, it'd be tough to turn down $14MM, but if he thinks he can get a 2-3 year deal, he may decline. My biggest concern is that the Brewers sign him to a 2-3 year deal. He's old, it's amazing he's made it this far, and I don't want to get stuck with him when Father Time kicks him in the butt. Unfortunately, that's probably what's going to happen.

Smith was a big reason the Brewers got off to their hot start. For 6 weeks he gave them the kind of relief that's catapulted KC to where they are. Unfortunately he couldn't sustain that but very few guys could. Roenicke's bullpen strategy is something along the lines of: Step 1: Trust 1-2 guys that aren't labeled "closer." Pitch those 1-2 guys every day until either their arm breaks (Thornburg) or they are no longer effective due to either fatigue or the opponents figuring them out (Smith). Step 2: Repeat this process until there are no longer any bullpen arms worth a darn. Step 3: See how many games are lost in late innings when you have worn out your bullpen.

Thats because davis was hurt. Because of the expanded rosters, we just didn't really hear about it. I know, but after he was able to play, Parra continued to start. I chalk this up to Roenicke liking Parra's defense and disliking Davis' arm. I think eventually Davis will end up at DH, as teams can run on him at will. My post was pure speculation, but when the owner says people gave up, then at least in his eyes some players gave up and something will probably be done about it. I was just trying to think of who might be in Attanasio's sights. If all he does is get rid of a couple of relatively meaningless coaches, then his whole episode in the press box was a bunch of hot air. I thought the Lohse signing was a blessing because the Brewers were facing entering the season with next to nothing in the rotation in terms of reliability beyond Gallardo, which would've totally sunk them. He's pitched as well as could be expected, but during Lohse's tenure as a Brewer, they haven't done anything as a team, so might they be better off if they had just not signed him? Same goes for Ramirez. Re: your other point about promising prospects at the upper levels, you've got a solid point... At the same time, for every Brantley or Cain or Odorizzi, there's a LaPorta, a Will Inman, a Cole Gillespie, or even Brett Lawrie who, for one reason or another, doesn't live up to the potential over the long-term that merited his inclusion as a top prospect in a trade for a difference-making veteran. As you pointed out, some prospects fail while others succeed. That's why it's vitally important to stockpile as many good prospects as you can from a variety of sources (draft, trade, international). By trading away prospects, not trading for prospects and not really getting into international signings until recently, they were highly dependent on the draft to stock up their farm and they haven't been very good in the draft. Recent changes (drafting for higher upside, signing international players) seem to be positive. I understand that it's hard to predict how a free agent will do. An important point that is often overlooked as people talk about how unpredictable ("crapshoot") prospects are. Yes some prospects fail, but so do veterans. However, prospects are generally a lot cheaper than veterans, so with the right strategy in place, you can stockpile a lot more prospects than you can veterans, and making a mistake on one is not nearly as costly. If we got in the habit of occasionally trading away a "proven" vet for a few prospects, you don't have to hit on all of them. If, for instance, we traded Lohse for three guys, only one of those three would have to pan out and we would get six cheap years of a good, young player for one expensive year of a guy who may or may not be league average over one more season near the end of his career. If we happen to be right on two of the three, we've got a steal. Of course, none could pan out, which is why this can't be a one-off situation, like the Brewers have made it by rarely making "proven-for-prospect" trades, but often making "prospect-for-proven" moves. Note: "prospect-for-proven" does not only mean trades, it can also mean things like giving up draft picks for free agents, or bringing in journeyman vets to block younger, cheaper players.

I'm a planner. I like long-term strategies that never go "all in" at the expense of the future. To me, that's sort of like cashing in your retirement accounts the day you retire and blowing it on a big party, and then wondering why you have a hard time paying the bills for the rest of your life, while complaining that other people (who didn't think short-term) always seem to have money. I always want to "attempt to win," only I don't think you need to cripple your future "self" in order to appease your present "self." In the offseason leading into 2011, the Brewers went all in and failed by most people's standards (apparently not by some Brewer fans low expectations). So you are apparently upset with me for mentioning that they could have done things differently, but you are perfectly content that they did not win anything that year, and lost "their best hitter" for nothing when they could have received a lot in return, which would mean we would have a much better franchise today. In other words, Brewers' brass could have been looking at winning over the past few seasons rather than patting themselves on the back for making token moves that bring fans to the stadium. As to your "then what, you trade them five years later?" comment, you seem to be forgetting the long period (six years is a relatively long time for a pro athlete) in which you have those players. That's a lot of good baseball, plus a lot of potential to do things like extending them while they are young and cheap. But yes, if at the time their "team control" is getting short, of course you look at trading them. It's a business, so you always look at what can make your franchise better. But again, by "better," I look long-term and mean continually adding talent to the franchise as a whole. I fully understand that some people's definition of "better" is much more short term, and simply looks at the team on the field in the current or upcoming season. Brewer brass has been good at appeasing these people (who make up the majority of society). We'll just have to see if the strategy can continue to trot out .500 level teams to keep the seats filled, because the current strategy is absolutely dependent on keeping attendance up, so if these fans decide not to buy tickets, we'll need a fire sale.

This is the one thing that makes me think Gomez or Davis might be traded. There really doesn't seem to be any other move that would make sense from this angle (moving a player because of a bad attitude). Now, I'm not saying Gomez or Davis have bad attitudes, but in speculating who may be the culprit, they're the most logical choices that could get dealt for this reason. Gomez rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and Parra got almost all the playing time in LF at the end of the season. Ramirez could walk, but he could do that regardless of what Attanasio thinks of his attitude, and Weeks is gone anyway. They could blame them, but that strategy could blow up on the Brewers. Lucroy and Braun aren't going anywhere. I guess this could be why a pitcher gets dealt, but with our luck, the bad attitude would probably be from Peralta or Nelson and not one of the guys who make more sense to trade (Gallardo and Lohse). Oh well, I just want the World Series to get over so the first steps of the offseason can start to take place (like the Ramirez situation resolving itself), and we can stop the speculation and see what "path" Attanasio wants to take.

They tried to trade Fielder. There was no market. Of course there's no market when you set the price tag at two young, MLB ready starting pitchers as Melvin did. Fielder was on the final year of his contract, so anyone trading for him was looking to win that year. No team looking to win now is able to trade away two good, young pitchers from their MLB rotation. The following offseason, the bidding war on Fielder (after the big money Angels were taken out of the bidding by signing Pujols) reached around the $200MM level. Are you saying that multiple teams were willing to sign Fielder to nearly a $200MM contract, but none were willing to give up anything of value for him in trade? I don't buy that argument. Rather, I think Melvin/Attanasio had two "paths" for that offseason - trade Fielder for players that can allow us to "win now," or keep Fielder and trade away prospects to help us "win now." Had he instead put Fielder on the market for the best overall value, without the crazy stipulation that he had to bring back two MLB pitchers, Fielder would have netted us some very good young talent. Throw in more talent from trading Hart, and that we would not have traded away all of the good players that we did, and while we probably would have missed out on the "magical" 2011 season (in which we won one playoff series), but we would have been a much better team since then, and would have a more talented franchise at this point going forward. There is probably no other fan base in professional sports that would still look back three years later with statements like "I'll always have those memories" about a team that lost before even making the championship game/series. This wasn't winning the World Series, it wasn't even making the World Series, it was simply winning one playoff series, and the cost of that was a substantial bite out of the franchise's future... one that now has the MLB team setting payroll records to field teams fighting for .500, with a farm system that still ranks near the bottom. TheCrew07 has went on at length about how the current Brewer management has never looked for the future, going all the way back to the Sexson trade bringing in a bunch of MLB guys, but few prospects. Even with that, I still see the offseason at topic in this thread as the real turning point from us building from within to potentially build a franchise that could be sustainably good to one that was trying to "win now" before collapsing. Since then, we've seen our star talent leave, while replacing them with lesser talent. Braun is now past his "prime" years, and we continue to get more and more "top heavy" on salaries, while the young inexpensive guys are not nearly as talented as the young guys who got us to the playoffs in the recent past. Without star talent on the farm or at the pre-arby level, we're dependent on signing free agents as our "core," and we do not have the payroll to sign the top guys, so our "core" (being filled up with B-level free agents and unheralded prospects) really has little chance at being special. But, there is one thing this management has figured out. They know that if they continue to add a "name" player every offseason, the fanbase will believe that they're really trying and will therefore continue to buy tickets. With that knowledge and the fear that "going down the other path" will lead to lowered ticket sales, they will keep doing the same thing over and over until fans finally stop believing.

The only way they deal Gomez is if they falter badly and look like it's time to rebuild. If the Brewers go 0-162 next year, I think Attanasio would believe the solution would be to sign one or two more veteran "name" players and to use the guys on the farm for their sole purpose... trade bait to get more "name" players. Kidding aside, I think you nailed it. Attanasio can talk about "two paths" all he wants, but he's so far down his favorite path that it may take a demolition crew to clear out the "other path." To topic of this thread, Gomez is one of the few arrows we have in the quiver that has the potential to make the inevitable rebuild a little easier. He could bring back several good young players that could brighten up the future, but the cynical side of me doubts he'll be traded now. Instead, they'll wait until he has a couple of months left on his contract before they'll even consider trading him.

it wasn't just this trade that offseason, it was also the Marcum trade and that we didn't trade away Fielder and Hart (who both were entering their final year) and potentially others like Weeks. I can understand how doing all of this to go "all in" for one year was exciting for fans who have been bombarded with sub-par baseball for most of the team's existence. I just can't understand why management won't understand how going all in for "today" will hurt the franchise's chances "tomorrow," and that eventually some moves have to be made to help "tomorrow." Most Brewer fans are are also Packer fans, and most would never accept from the Packers what they get giddy about from the Brewers. We made big moves that seriously hurt the future of the franchise and got one playoff series win. Some here seem to think that they can now go to their grave satisfied because they saw the Brewers win one playoff series. Talk about a low hurdle.