rickh150

I am really struggling to explain my philosophy in a way that makes sense, so please bare with me while I attempt to explain why I disagree with winning the World Series should be the primary goal instead of making the playoffs every year. Over the course of a 162-game season, a teams performance is an indication as to how good that team really is. A team that wins, say, 95 games, probably is a pretty good team and worthy of making the playoffs. It would be difficult for a team with 70-win talent to luck into winning 95 games. As such, a team that is very good over a several year stretch is going to make the playoffs often. Over short stretches even bad teams can win a series against good teams. Often the reason for those short term successes are instances where luck played a bigger part in the outcome than skill. To me, that means teams have more control over their season long success than they do in a short series. That's why the best regular season team is sometimes beaten by lesser teams in the playoffs and World Series. A series can turn on a single inning or a pulled muscle stretching a double into a triple, something that doesn't have the same effect on a full season. As such, I think teams should build their roster to make the playoffs instead of to win the World Series. Once you are in the playoffs, let the chips fall where they may and if you make it often enough you are bound to win it all eventually. And if you are fortunate enough, maybe even multiple times. That means not doing anything that harms the teams long term viability, even if it seems to increases the odds of winning the WS in a given year. That's my preference. I'd rather the team not try to "speed up" the natural rebuilding process, and I don't want the team to shorten their window by a couple of years in an effort to increase their odds of winning a World Series in any one particular year. I don't want a year or two with the best odds, I just want lots of years with a chance. Well said..... I disagree, mainly because as a small market we have to turn a roster over so drastically every five years. This year, at the beginning of season 2015, we had four guys from the 2011 playoff team (Braun, Gomez, Lucroy, Krod)..... Four from a team that won 96 games! (And If we didn't get GreiNke and Marcum, we probably don't make playoffs). How can we possibly fill gaps when guys get to free agency? Play youngsters, most that probably aren't ready, overpay to keep, overpay a free agent, or trade the farm system away. The only way that small markets can compete is to bunch great prospects together, load resources into a small group of players to supplement them, and hope for the best. It would be great to compete yearly, but that would require yearly, unbelievable drafting that the world hasn't seen yet.... Moreover, If all tv revenue was shared, I would vote for the vision you and MNBrew put out here. I can see the logic of your premise; I just don't think we will ever have the finances to support it......

Extremely impressive..... I couldn't believe that he was throwing mid 90's consistently (usually 94). I thought his curve was a very good pitch with a lot of bite, actually. I don't know what the Brewers will do with him, though. If 2016 isn't the year for him in the rotation, i would be ok with it. We might not be really competitive anyway.... Save a year and start him in Sept./ 2017.

I think MA would respond in a respectful way instead of belittling a different opinion. Moreover, the top goal question was asked at Stearn's press conference, and there should have been a follow up question on the matter for clarification. Then, perhaps, this thread doesn't exist. Respectfully, I can't believe that I am in the minority either. The top priority should be to win a championship, not simply to be in a position to possibly win a championship on a yearly basis. In our market, we have to take some shots here and there and can't be bogged down with this idea that we need to compete for the playoffs yearly. Try to be good always, sure. Players, Coaches, Front Office and GM should do their best to get the most out of the club on a yearly basis. But, resource wise, use them more around pockets of very good players, especially years when these players are in their primes. For instance, over the last year two years, I don't look to sign K-Rod or Garza. I wouldn't have tried to trade for Lind. I simply thought we were not quite good enough for us to be in the playoffs/contend for a championship and to take on contracts to be better was not in the best interest of the club. We could have stockpiled a little money until we were better. To me, that money was somewhat wasted money. Now, I look back and say that I was wrong somewhat with Lind and K-Rod. We could get a good prospect or two from them this winter. Their veteran leadership is nice to have too right now. I would have rather traded Gomez, Lucroy, or Yo earlier for a bigger haul (although the Gomez/Fiers haul looks really good). But my point is this..... just trying to get in/sniff the playoffs can elongate the inevitable of having to rebuild. Also, 50% of wild card teams are out now after 1 game, and the idea of "Just Get In and We Could Win" should be changing because of it. By the way, how is this vision different than any other team in baseball? What differentiates us from any other team out there? Do you consider your answer to be THEEEE Answer for every organization in MLB? Is there another answer to the "Vision Question" or do you hold the absolute answer on this one?

I think you are setting yourself up for trouble by making unattainable goals as the priority instead of the ultimate goal (a championship), which is attainable. You have to start with the ultimate goal. Agree whole heartedly.

Yes, you are. Nope. Under this vision, would we have traded for CC, Greinke, Marcum? Would we trade Fielder before 2011? Do we ever get aggressive again for certain seasons if being contenders yearly is the goal?

- I want the Brewers to be good enough at the MLB level to be an upper-tier dominant team or at least to make the playoffs every year, which gives them a chance to make it to & hopefully win the World Series. - I want the Brewers to have a farm system that's deep in high-end prospects, year in and year out, which gives them the flexibility to turn over parts of the roster affordably with those prospects or, at the right times, with assets acquired with pieces of the current roster and/or some of those prospects. - I want the Brewers to be smart enough to know when the wise thing to do is see the decline coming before it totally bottoms out, and capably and proactively retool things to return the caliber of team & farm system described in the previous two points. If the lousy stretches can be narrowed and/or minimized by those "right" types of decisions -- without compromising vision & the necessary steps of the process -- then so much the better. Do we have any advantage whatsoever among the other MLB teams? Money? Prestige? Overseas pipeline talent? Does any small market? No. Small markets try to get enough resources together for short runs at the playoffs/championship. This is what all small market teams do; then they have to tear it down or take a few steps back. In the last 25 years, your definition of sustained success has not happened for a small market team, has it? I am all for goals and having a great vision, yet let's be realistic. The great thing about 2015 baseball is that all teams believe if they are smart enough with key decisions, a World Championship is an attainable goal. A small market team that wins consistently, makes the playoffs year in, year out for a decade, having prospects galore to fill holes, hasn't happened yet. Why yearn for this? It would be great, but again unrealistic. If we had the Cards money, we sign Greinke or Fielder or a closer to long deals. We probably get in the playoffs in 2012 and/or 2014. Melvin would still be considered a top GM. But we have a substantially lower payroll, even at 100million, and the gap will continue to grow because of the large, new TV deals in bigger markets. To sustain long term success, you usually need to keep very good/great players around for most of their careers. You need good young players coming through your system constantly, even when you are drafting in the mid to late first round for a few straight years. Few teams can do this. Concluding, I would much rather hear MA say that our ultimate goal is a championship. For those of you saying I am nitpicking his words, I am not. He wants to win it all, of course. Yet, why didn't he include it in his ultimate goal? I find it extremely interesting that he did not, knowing that the guy wants to win badly. Was it anywhere else on his list? If not, why not? I fear that he does not want to make more CC or Greinke trades where we gave up pieces of the " sustained success" for a better shot at a championship. On the other side, I fear that he will sign vets just to sustain limited success and crowds instead of doing tear down for a couple of years. (MNBrew, no hard feelings on this end and apologies for poorly worded intro. You stated your vision very well; I just can't agree with every point made. We both want the Brewers to be exceedingly good. The difference is that I see the road to being good consistently for a long time as a near impossible task knowing the deep pocketed opposition. To me, the better route is to shoot for great by building teams around great core players, trying to build windows of opportunity, knowing that rebuilding is a part to small market baseball.

I like vague words too..... Just not as much as you. What does "successful" or "consistently successful" look like exactly? What is "an organizational approach"? "Maintaining success highly likely"? Man, that paragraph of yours sounds really good on the surface. Count me in. I want the Brewers to be good all the time too. Great paragraph, except that it has little substance.... Kind of like a politician. When you dig deeper, you find that the consistent small market playoff team rarely exists over even a 5 year period in the last 25 years. Off the top of my head, there are the A's, Rays, and Twins. No championships either with them. The Twins could get in but didn't have the top starting pitching to go far. The Rays were fairly consistent because of how terrible they were, getting high #1 picks. Now, they are down again. The A's had Cheap upper level pitching with Mulder, Zito, Hudson, and Harden, then they got expensive and they had to rebuild. The small market team (Marlins) that did win it (twice) went at it a different way....Build it and burn it (not in favor but believe small markets should shoot for windows of opportunity). Now if we have the potential to keep good young talent by having a larger payroll of a upper mid market team, I like the strategy, ala the Cardinals. For us, it is much more realistic to build around Biloxi, just like we built around Fielder, Braun, Hart, Weeks, and Yo. Try to have a great team in a couple/few years.... Build for it.... Get the upper level pitching needed thru trade when time comes. Sign a few vets then too. Compete hopefully for the playoffs and a championship for a 3 to 5 window, and then repeat. Too many believe we can be the Milwaukee Packers with only homegrown players, that we can be good all the time. The finances of baseball are not like football and that is why perennial small market powerhouses are no where to be found; it doesn't happen. We can't keep many great players long term. Finally, I am not against ownership. Attanasio is the best thing that happened to this organization. I have given Melvin more credit than most. I just am confused with the focus to be good all the time when small markets have yet to do tHis yet; they HAVE TO go thru rebuilds (unless unbelievable drafts occur yearly when team is winning). I'd much rather have the top goal be .... to WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP by building towards it yearly. Whether it means to take a step back (like after 2014) before charging ahead, whether it means building around Biloxi, whether it means building around a couple of potential ace pitchers, the organization's top goal should not be to sniff or be in the playoffs yearly. It doesn't happen for small markets. It sure would be nice though.

Attanasio's top goal STRESS TOP is to compete for playoffs yearly? Hmm... Isn't this how we got into our current state? Instead of scrapping the 2014 team, or trading valuable off parts after that season, taking a step back, we went for it with similar parts in 2015 to sniff the playoffs. Melvin himself said team officials thought the 2015 Brewers were a slightly better than .500 team and with some things bouncing the right way a playoff team. To me that means probably not a playoff team. So we were ok to stand pat? If championship was #1, we trade More guys at the start of this year and try a different configured group to compete later. I am getting confused. What are we doing? If we believe we can be perennial winners, do we ever rebuild? Is management going for playoffs yearly starting in 2016? Has that vision started already, or are we talking about competing for playoffs regularly in two or three years? If that vision starts now, we should be entertaining free agents this offseason. We need to pay for spare parts that we don't have in the system. This belief is equal to thinking you always should be competing to get in for the second wild card. If we had Winning a championship as the top goal, we would be going through some growing pains now, which we are..... Playing young guys, not getting pricy free agents, making trades for quality prospects that are not in the prime of their career yet. We would be looking to mortgage the future a bit and go all in every once in a while to get a championship...... Taking a step back for a year or two in order to revamp and have a window with a strong group( AA Biloxi). So to me, our words and actions don't match up. We are rebuilding now to be what again? Perennial winners every year or championship contenders every few years? HUGE difference! We have seen both visions over the last 7 seven years..... Intertwined at times. In 2008 and 2011, we went all in to not only get in the playoffs, but win the whole thing. Ace pitchers CC and Zgreinke were brought in to pitch and win playoff games, pitch game 7 of the World Series. We traded off young, controllable, talented players that could have allowed us to be yearly winners to go for it all, especially in 2011. Yet recently, we are signing K-rod and Garza to maybe get in the playoffs. To me, the organization's TOP goal changed or waivered over the years. Are we starting a new vision now or are we continuing to flip flop around?

In GM search, MA named his top priority criteria as (paraphrasing) maintaining a consistent playoff team. Great goal..... Great idea. Not #1 though. I have issue with this for a few reasons. First,Shouldn't the ultimate goal be to bring a World Series Championship for the fans of Milwaukee? Is our ultimate goal to be the 1990's Braves? Come on! Not to say that we wouldn't enjoy that run immensely and a championship to boot would be outstanding. However, Many playoff races and births with little playoff winning leaves a franchise with a very empty feeling. So no, I can't view this as #1 priority, Mark. Second, In small market baseball, teams have windows. We had a window when Braun, Fielder, Hart, Yo we're cheap. I think Melvin knew it too so we went all in, as we should have done, with CC and Greinke. Third, what precedent is there for small market teams having sustained success over the last 25 years? Twins for 7 years and early playoff exits? Rays? Not really. Fourth, I don't think I would rather be the Marlins. Radical trades and Free agent signings, tear downs and build ups. Yet, they went for the throat in 97 and 03 and got World Series championships. Isn't that what we really want?? Give me 1 playoff birth and 1 championship in the next 10 years, and call me a content camper. I would rather have that than 7 playoff appearances in 10 years with no championship. You would too.

Would have gone better if they shut down Nelson and Peralta the same time as they shut down Garza. Can't believe it could have gone worse..... Garza possibly doesn't throw the gigantic baby fit because he is not singled out for poor pitching (rather sitting for pitch count/not risking injury/letting young guys pitch) Nelson doesn't get hit in head, and Peralta doesn't throw more pitches when he is possibly still not 100%. Hindsight 20-20. They still are protecting themselves well for next year.

Still super sour on Cubs..... Big money, pompous fans....

Did Andujar get a come backer (still stayed in game, though) in game 7?

September is brutal.

Thanks! Didn't see that...

Just saw Brady's stats..... He had 4 TDs, one being a pass to a WR who fumbled and Gronk recovered the fumble for a TD. I get that Gronk should get credit for a TD, but why does Brady get credit for a TD pass???

I thought he was hurt by a liner in Game 7..... I remember getting reprimanded by my parents for rejoicing that he was hurt.

Like the 6:20 start times on many Mondays a lot! I'd like to see every weekday night game start at 6:20. I'm fairly sure most players and media members would agree.

Floating it out there.... I can see him privately telling Attanasio he would be open to a trade. He wants to win, and with the Cardinals and Cubs looking to dominate this division for the remainder of his contract, and with the Brewers rebuilding, California has to be looking better all the time. He could be telling himself that it might be time to come back home. If I'm in his shoes, that might be what I'd be thinking

Many random questions, but first of all.....Make him pitch out of the pen! Why give him the option to be shut down? If he doesn't, file a grievance and take his pay. Why even say that he will start in 2016? Make him earn it. Who does this guy think he is? I respect Lohse more now. From RR being soft and carefree with guys running into outs on the bases and Sedar admitting guys don't follow/know signs to this player pitching option, I can start legitimately asking the question of who is running this show.

It is boggling my mind why anyone would want a batter to watch a pitch go by them that is perfectly hittable and something that they can handle just because they want to what? Work the count? All you are doing is allowing the pitcher to get back into the game. I just can't understand this way of thinking at all. Are you watching the same game that I am? This isn't slow pitch softball. There is so little time to decipher if the pitch is good to hit. Guys swing at balls all the time. Pitches look good, they swing, the ball falls out of the zone. .220 hitters or pitchers have a better chance of getting on base.... Sometime that is all the manager is looking for..... by taking a pitch 2-0 than hacking. Also, it never hurts to make the pitcher work more for an out. Am I for EVERY player taking 2-0 in every situation? Of course not! Yet, there are times when it is beneficial to simply take a pitch, be patient, make the pitcher throw multiple strikes in a count.

Pure ignorance of baseball strategy...... Are you telling me that ANY player.... Stress ANY player... who THINKS they can drive a pitch...... which technically is any pitch they initially swing at... In ANY situation in ANY count is not only ok, but should be encouraged by the manager. Taking a pitch 2-0 has it's place all the time, especially when: ....you are down late in the game and are looking to just get base runners on base .... A struggling hitter or pitcher is up and walk gets you to a much better hitter .... You DO NOT want to hit into a double play with bases loaded and a top hitter is on deck ..... A pitcher just walked two guys and you do not want to let him off the hook by swinging Does this mean you aren't swinging if the pitcher then makes the count 2-1? No. There are times to take a pitch, show some patience to better the team's overall game situation. Getting a walk or into a better walk count has its place. Our players need to be taught/shown this on and off the field.

From Ed Sedar at Veterans Hospital, after question and answer session on Tuesday..... I have been looking for this answer, or simply an answer, for years on this topic. Media wouldn't ask the question. I asked him point blank if Brewers had a take sign. I told him I was wondering because when the team is down 4 in the 8th, too many (poor hitters) are hacking on 2-0 instead of making the pitcher throw a strike. We simply need base runners. He said yes they do have a take sign. However, he said, many guys don't look down on 2-0, usually only on 3-0 Also, he said some guys aren't picking up the signs. I took that as not JUST the take sign. I'm encouraged that they do have a take sign, but I am troubled that guys are not following or not understanding coaches' signs on strategy. Ed was very good to all there, energetic and willing to listen. I talked to Bill Schroeder, as well, congratulated him on Wall of Fame honor, and thanked him for coming to the VA. He too was very humble, talkative, and friendly to all in attendance. Only about 50 people in attendance (half of them vets) for Q and A. Tons of brats left over.

Your last sentence.... If the gay rights groups listened to you, they would have given up years ago. Also, is your last sentence the view of the majority? If not, you better not share it in this forum. Kidding aside and respectfully, I'm just trying to support my opinion.... Same as everybody else.

A couple things about this thread are odd to me...... One, this whole thread really started out having nothing to do with the game of baseball. It continued as a pep rally for gay rights. I bring up a different view, get a few kickbacks, and THEN the issue of religion is brought up, how this should be in a different thread. Meaning, you can't have it both ways. Put it immediately in the "religion" or off topic thread or don't. And if you are going to sit on the fence, put a leg on both sides. Two, whether you want to believe it or not, ALL of us have a sense of morality, the belief in right and wrong. On the spectrum of right/wrong, we can all mostly agree with certain things being bad- murder, rape, abuses, Cubs baseball, etc... However with other subsets, the fact is that many, including those supporting gay rights, will have a wide range of differing opinions with abortion, Robin Hood theft, taxation, honoring authority (police), gambling, prostitution, marrying family, marrying animals, etc...... Meaning, it's an ironic joke to call me out as being intolerant, unevolved, or WRONG. Who now has the set list of absolutes in their back pocket? In all the issues listed above, I try (failing at times in doing so) to line up my beliefs with historical Biblical teachings. Some others seem to pull answers out of thin air on each issue or immediately believe what the media feeds them, regarding differing opinions with disdain.....

Davego has a good point about a third place team potentially getting in the playoffs and winning it all. It gives me, for one, more hope in the near future.