Jjfanec, that is exactly right. Top end pitching prospects are currently overvalued. Getting one in a trade like Buccholz or Niemann would have cost us at least as much as the Greinke or Marcum trades, if not more and when you consider the flame out rate of prospect pitchers, it's even harder. For every Buccholz there is a Homer Bailey. I think my biggest issue with ThCrew's argument is that it is always based on these hypothetical prospect pitcher trades, but please look around baseball. How many top pitching prospects change hands? It hardly ever happens. It happened with the Rays getting Garza, but they had to give up baseball's top rated prospect to get him. Of course one can always point to the absolute fleecing of the Mets a few years earlier by the Rays, but that had to do more with absolutelty horrific GMing by the Mets (there is a reason that GM is no longer running a club). Point is trades for top rung pitching prospects happened only a couple of times over the past decade. The argument isn't very realistic. As other's have pointed out, if the Brewers wouldn't have made this offseason's trades they would have remained in their "good" but not "great" run. Very few teams have been ever able to make postseason runs using the prospect only model. The only modern example was the Rays in 2008. Despite that one year of success, the Rays since then have remained in that "good" but not "great" category of teams, and that has been the case despite having the best farm system of any team in recent memory. If their farm system leaves them out of the playoffs more often than in the playoffs, what would that mean for the Brewers if they followed that model?