MNBrew

Only one way to do this? Sorry, but lots of teams have done this before and continued to fail. Heck, even star child Billy Beane traded half the players in MLB last winter in what was not intended as a tear-down and Oakland went from a playoff team to the toilet. You cannot guarantee that any specific prospect you're counting on or how many of your top prospects will pan out. Local example: In the late '80s & early '90s, we heard tons about the prospect train that included Eldred, Wegman, Bosio, Jaha, Braggs, Vaughn, and so on. That Brewers team had one good push ('92) and still didn't make the playoffs (granted, smaller playoff field, but still).

There's a dearth of truly good catchers out there. Sure, we can get a body in here to fill the spot. But many have recited the parade of ham-and-egger or career-downslide catchers this team went through after Surhoff & Nilsson and before Lucroy, and I'd rather not re-live that experience again in spite of some far-better-than-expected contributions from Eddie Perez, Keith Osik, Paul Bako, & Gregg Zaun (I shake my head as I type those names, both because they actually had decent MIL years and all the more because how lousy some of the others proved to be). I'd suggest that whomever will be the next solid, upper-end, everyday catcher for the Brewers after Lucroy (whenever that time does come) is quite possibly not anywhere near the Brewers' organization right now. So to say Lucroy's easily replaceable is conjecture at best, wishful thinking for sure, and certainly not definitive at the least in terms of anything near the caliber of player he's been to date. I get the logic of why he could be a very lucrative (no pun intended) trade chip. However, prospects aren't guaranteed. For every Gomez/Fiers trade, there's a Johan Santana-to-the-Mets deal. Some deals you win, some you lose. In the case of Lucroy, I'm inclined to lean toward the bird in the hand vs. the two prospect birds in the bush. Yes, Lucroy's in his prime years now. Nothing's guaranteed as players age, especially through their 30s. But some players also continue to improve for quite a while past the threshold of 30 and Lucroy strikes me as one who well could (with the universal caveat of maintaining good health). (In case it helps to clarify my slant: I'm definitely a fan of the rebuild/retool/re-whatever. That's well underway. I'm not overly attached to Segura, Khris Davis, maybe even Gennett, and although I like Adam Lind as a player, I'd agree with those who figure that he probably has fewer games as a Brewer in front of him than he has behind him. I'm not, however, a fan of the total tear-down. The odds of that working meaningfully seem no better than the odds that it won't.)

Whether Stearns actually said "everyone is available" or that's just Olney's interpretation of what he heard is the sort of reporting we hear all the time -- semantics on one level, but very different realities on another. Some reporters like the prospect of player movement as action/news to report and, as a result, often err in their accuracy under the premise/guise of semantics. In the end, Olney could be spot-on, but I'll believe it when we see it, which brings up my own slant... I'm totally w/ dlk9s. I don't want the Brewers to trade Braun or Lucroy and I don't want the FO to want to, either. There's such intrigue to the prospect of trading one/both of those two, which I get. But sentiment is different than need and the Brewers have no actual need to cut that much payroll, regardless of Lucroy's trade value and the size of Braun's contract. To me, the "trade Braun &/or Lucroy" seriously walks the line of "be careful what you wish for." Whether or not Braun's the "face of the franchise" per se anymore or not, the PED stuff is in the past and he's still one of the top-level offensive players in the league, all the more so because it took him a while to get his bat going & regain his old form post-thumb-procedure & 1.5 years of injury-affected play. He wasn't Bryce Harper-hot this year, but there weren't that many players overall above his level (OPS, HRs/run production, speed, etc.). Guys who play like that don't exactly grow on trees, and guys like that who actually WANT to and willingly commit to play in Milwaukee are that much more rare.

There would be the same degree of discontent, just from a different perspective, if they'd hired a guy with major league coaching experience. That got me thinking on a tangent... The Brewers are, if nothing else, extremely willing to hire managers with no major league track record. Before Ken Macha, and not counting post-Garner interim Jim Lefebrve, you have to go back to the mid-'80s to find the last times the Brewers hired a manager with big league managing experience (Rene Lachemann & George Bamberger v2.0). In the meantime, the following guys -- all with NO MLB managerial experience -- have been hired to manage the Brewers since then: Tom Trebelhorn Phil Garner Davey Lopes Jerry Royster Ned Yost Dale Sveum Ron Roenicke Craig Counsell

"Won't be offered an extension" and "isn't interested in an extension now" are two different things. And between Lucroy's 2015 dip and the unknown of Stearns' opinion/intentions, there's no real way no predict where this will go with any certainty whatsoever. Baseball's certainly lacking overall depth of upper-tier catchers. The Brewers' system is sorely lacking in high-quality catching prospects. I strongly agree with Briggs that keeping Lucroy around both now and past the end of his current contract is the wise way to go, the typical vogue/trendy & seemingly stats-heavy logic of going Cubs/Astros-ish "all in, total teardown" on a rebuild notwithstanding.

Is this supposed to be Coles?

... and also muddled by fans who don't read carefully and/or assume their own bias/slant beyond stated facts to be correct. I believe Garza could prove to be a positive rotation asset IF he pitches like or better than he did in 2014 (which wasn't great but was still pretty respectable) and IF we get a new pitching coach who's A) competent and B) successful at getting through to Garza and gaining his trust . . . . Counsell being who he is, I have some hope that we can get a new pitching coach who might just be what the doctor ordered for Garza & the whole staff. Because 2015 ended with Garza in a tizzy and pitching like a total mess in a downward spiral, it's easy to assume that's the whole picture of him. That could still prove to be the case, even quite easily. But it's also possible he'll pitch more like he did over the previous 8 or whatever years of his career, which, even when not really special, generally was pretty decent.

A friend of mine has taught in AZ for over a decade & a large portion of his class every year is of Mexican heritage and/or are kids of immigrants. I sent him some of my thoughts on expansion to get his reaction & to see what his thoughts were both on mine ideas & in general. Here's part of his reaction (and if his observations & opinions are indeed accurate, and if MLB's seriously intent about expansion in these couple places, these also seem like the sorts of observations they could well totally ignore or gloss over): No way to Mexico City! Many Mexicans don't want to go anywhere near there. SO SO dangerous and corrupt (think: kidnapped players like Ugueth Urbina's clan). . . Baseball's just not that popular in Mexico. I might have one student each year that finds baseball somewhat bearable - but they hate baseball A LOT! You can't change a culture just by plopping down a franchise in the biggest city. . . . Floating around the internet somewhere are some horror stories of that NFL game in Mexico City a few years back. I know the AZ Cardinals were one of the teams. If I remember correctly, the players were basically on lockdown in their hotel and had to keep their blinds drawn. I believe the team bus was stripped or somehow vandalized despite being in a supposedly safe part of town. I also think the NFL had to hire some local security force to be stationed outside the hotel with machine guns. Las Vegas is also a terrible idea. Arizona has bad attendance because no is really from here. 90% of the population is from somewhere else in America or Mexico. Las Vegas is the same way. They could never support an MLB team. There is so much to do in Vegas that the locals always have something else to spend their disposable income on. The vibe around Vegas is so different from any other big city. It almost feels like a different planet. A 15,000 seat NBA team "might" work there. But, despite all the money and bigwigs flowing in Las Vegas, UNLV has a crappy football stadium like 10-15 miles off campus. For the 10 years we have been going to Vegas, there has been proposal after proposal for a new UNLV stadium but nothing ever happens. There's just not a lot of momentum for any kind of sports there. (My side note: It's worth noting the NHL feels differently about Las Vegas because Vegas (along with Quebec City) is apparently in strong contention for an NHL expansion team and their arena is deep into its construction and their season ticket drive (done to test the interest & then show the NHL) netted over 13,000 deposits -- real cash.)

I am very excited to see what a new pitching coaching and staff does with what we have here in Milwaukee. I think we see that all too often that pitchers have greater success away from Milwaukee. Both Yo and Estrada went to American League teams and out performed their career numbers. That, to me, says a lot about our coaches. I continue to contend that Rick Kranitz really never seemed to help our pitchers, especially our SPs, get better. It really seems there are more guys who've done better after leaving MIL (I'd readily add Villanueva to the list) than while they were here. The bullpen has several positive examples, but that's more Tunnell's domain.

^^This sounds like a sound-byte type answer. On the surface, it makes sense. But to my thinking it's not that simple at all. To use your wording, some of the so-called garbage cities aren't garbage cities at all, just cities whose team's legit competitiveness is cyclical & thus "window"-based. For 15 or so years once Jacobs Field (or whatever it's now called) opened, Cleveland sold out games forever and the Indians were an upper-tier team. At the same time, while baseball's economics were killing franchises like Milwaukee, Minnesota, & Montreal, there was talk of payroll-elite (read: big-market) leagues or divisions and then "lesser" franchises. It's basically the same idea as yours, just differently dressed. IMO, either is an inherently problematic & therefore flawed idea.

The NBA's TV contract is ridiculous, but I think over the last 10 years there's far more hype & media attention (ESPN!!!!!!) than overall fan interest on a national basis outside of the handful of top winning teams and hottest-name player or two. Responding to other thoughts in the thread so far... - Like Portland as noted earlier, in the late '80s, Buffalo built a new AAA stadium that was made with the intent of being expanded into an MLB stadium. But I recall hearing that there was more money behind FL ownership (COL was long viewed as the next obvious MLB city), so the better actual baseball option (over FL) lost out because the then-26 owners were all about the money in FL. I'm not sure Buffalo would ultimately have been the best market, but it sure was the darling of that thought process for quite a while (I still remember a major Sporting News article on it at the time -- back when it was a good magazine). - 2 of the 4 most recent expansion teams point out the folly in expanding to areas based on money and not on thoroughly sound baseball thinking. 1) Other than when they win big -- and not always even then -- the Marlins have a miserable time drawing fans. And 2) the since-they-started problem with Tampa Bay isn't the team or ownership, but that that stupid stadium had already been built in St. Pete (remember possible moves of the Giants & ChiSox?), which was the dumbest idea for a location because St. Pete's more of a quieter locale. The city of Tampa itself is nuts in general & about its sports teams -- even the A-ball Tampa Yankees -- and is where the Rays should be playing. . . . At least the Rays are in the right market, only hideously located and unfortunately kinda stuck on the wrong end of the causeway for at least the time being until logic, circumstances, & money finally fortuitously align. On the other hand, the Marlins theoretically should draw well but never do and, to my thinking, should be the next franchise to be moved (more on that in a minute). - Re: Mexico City, the lesson in the Miami expansion is that I'd fear the same logic building up the market would be based on promise & not as grounded in realistic possibilities (very much like the NHL's sun-belt expansion & moves in the '90s, which is a huge gamble that has never fully worked or proven sustainable in full). - In part based on the above, though I'm not totally sure why overall, Mexico City doesn't feel right as an expansion option. That idea has absolutely no appeal to me. And for all the stereotypical/historical reasons, I really dislike the idea of the MLB in Las Vegas. Baseball, more overtly than any other sport since 1900, has fought against the influence of gambling, whether that influence has been real (especially in the early days of the 1900s) or just perceived as potential. - I'm all for NL pitchers continuing to hit -- I hate the DH -- and think 4 8-team divisions presents the ideal alignment. - I think the idea presented earlier about Montreal not deserving a team because they lost one a decade ago holds no water -- not to mention the fact that Washington, where the Expos landed, lost not one but TWO previous franchises in just over a decade. (Technically Milwaukee also lost two MLB franchises -- the 1901 Brewers moved to St. Louis to become the Browns in '02, plus of course the Braves.) Of course, there's also the Philly/KC/Oakland franchise that now is stuck in a lousy ballpark situation and could someday move to its 4th major league city (San Jose, at least at one point in the discussion). - In the 4 8-team division scenario, you simply keep the present playoff qualifying arrangement -- in each league, 5 teams like this: 2 division-winners and the next three best records all make it, with the two lowest-seeded non-division-winners in a one-game play-in. It works now and wouldn't have to change a lick. The 2 division winners have home-field advantage in the divisional series. . . . Honestly, while I love the competition & trade activity the 5-playoff-teams deal engenders, I still prefer the more "purist" version of only 4 teams making the playoffs. However, there's no way MLB goes backward to that. . . . NOTE: Keep in mind that under this sort of playoff situation, the '87 Brewers would've made the playoffs because even though they finished 4th in the AL East (91-71), they still had a better record than the AL West-winning Twins (85-77), and thus would've earned the final Wild Card spot. - My 3 picks for new MLB cities would be: Montreal Portland Charlotte ... In my ideal world, two of those teams would be expansion teams & the 3rd would be the new home of the Miami Marlins. Keep in mind that Jeffrey Loria used to own the Expos and in some really convoluted 3-team horse-trading, he ended up owning the Marlins instead (the Red Sox were the 3rd team in the ownership carousel -- John Henry & Co.) and essentially moved the Expos' entire organization to Miami. (For articles on Loria & his influence on the destruction of the Expos, check out these two links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Loria and http://bleacherreport.com/articles/275561-how-jeffrey-loria-destroyed-the-montreal-exposwashington-nationals.) They've never been a consistent draw and certainly deserve to land on more baseball-fertile ground than Miami has proven to be.

This analogy's not perfect, but to me, advocating just sticking with Hernan Perez at 3B is about the equivalent of advocating for Logan Schafer as the starting CF in comparable circumstances. I've liked Schafer for a long time during his climb through the minors and I've believed in him longer than many seem to have, but even I now feel that if he were the best everyday option or the main guy getting playing time in CF, it's not a good sign for the organization. As such, I'd far prefer deal-fishing for a prospect with some promise (Lamb, Ashe, ???) than resorting to giving a roster spot to Perez, who seems to be a slightly better hitting version of Hector Gomez -- himself a guy who never should've been on this team in the first place and finally proved that true enough to earn his well-deserved DFA. We may be a while from contending, but just as we've done at other positions & in other moves, I'd rather try to land someone who could be a potential part of the future core than simply settling for Perez, who's a stop-gap at best and certainly not part of any future building plans. If such potential cog arrives and Lara &/or Gatewood live up to their potential, then at minimum we have quality organizational depth, which would be a huge improvement from the present reality.

Clancyphile, Braun was terrible at playing 3B. He played 3B for one major league season but he never really was a 3B. He was drafted as a SS and is a far better OF than he ever was or will be a 3B. Braun at 3B is about the equivalent of Betancourt & Alex Gonzalez at 1B -- or Izzy Alcantara playing anywhere in the OF -- in other words, something that the plain eye knows is a terrible idea. I believe I remember hearing that Braun himself was never comfortable playing at 3B. When the answer to the question of Braun at 3B seems that obvious, why waste time considering it or consider forcing it?

There's a chance the Twins could part with Trevor Plouffe in the right deal. They don't want Miguel Sano to be a DH (he did this year mostly due to nagging injuries). He has to play somewhere and it likely won't be in the OF, plus they have Mauer at 1B and Hunter who'd probably come back if he could play most everyday. The Brewers do have some pitching depth the Twins are probably envious of. Kind of like the Neal Cotts thing, there could be the possibility of a match here.

Well, sometimes Davis plays well... Granted, he was out all of June and his July PT wasn't great due to Parra's incredible hot stretch, so those two months justifiably amount to little and thus are best just to ignore. - He played mostly everyday in April & May. Results: 5 HR & 16 RBIs over 158 ABs (44 GP). ABs were pretty equal in April & May. In April he hit 1 HR & had 4 RBIs. Granted, the whole team was a disaster much of that stretch, but I don't think you can just blow off his contribution to the disaster. - He played basically everyday from August 1 through the end of the season. Results: 20 HR & 44 RBIs in 201 ABs (58 GP). A very strong two month stretch. Which two months, if either, do you put more stock in? If he's going to remain a Brewer, obviously we'd all hope something close to the latter is more the norm. Is he really the April/May guy, the August/September guy, or somewhere in the middle? No doubt the power potential AND reality are there. The question is, Is he enough more than just that to keep as part of the core or is he an appealing trade chip?

I'd agree with Tunnell but disagree with Kranitz. Peralta progressed greatly last year but regressed this year. Why were our most-proven SPs coming into this season unable to make adjustments & turn things around when they kept going so badly? That's on Kranitz, much like the hitting equivalent of that last year was on Johnny Narron (deservedly so, IMO).

Patronizing & presumptuous remarks, Logan. You don't know me or the full extent of my thinking. I understand that discussion, but that doesn't make me wrong if I still don't align my view with yours. There are multiple ways to view things, just like whether Davis merits trading or not. At some point in executing your offense, runs need to score. Someone needs to drive the runners in. If you're not driving guys in when you're batting with runners on base, you're contributing more constructively if you're at least getting on base yourself. Before Davis got super hot, he wasn't doing a terribly good job of doing either, his injury & time out of the lineup due to Parra starting notwithstanding. Maybe this is an apt comparison, or maybe it's not . . . Just how good Davis is is a question that inversely parallels the question of the 2014 Brewers: Were they really not too good, a superbly flawed team, which their terrible slump only finally bore out? Or were they pretty darn good but just blew it and blew it badly? Because they ended so lousy, it seemed like the majority here were convinced the first 5 months were a mirage and the last month-plus was truth. Yet Davis did nothing too special until August, then went pretty nuts. So were the last 2 months a mirage, or were the previous 4 months the mirage (noting the injury & Parra factors)? Do you put your eggs in the basket of the large sample or just the most recent stretch? (edit for spelling)

Everything being reported today by Haudricourt & McCalvy is that Jungmann, without overtly saying so, is very much saying he's fatigued. His September performances bear that out. Yes, the innings aren't up drastically, though they're still up 15% from last year and he's pitching a month longer than he has any other season. So many were convinced that when Mike Fiers stunk it up at the end of his first real big-league run that started SO hot, that it was really a case of the emperor's new clothes -- yeah, he's just not really that good. Time has proven otherwise, and fatigue then was likely the issue for him just as it's been with Jungmann over his past 5 starts.

1. & 2. I don't know. I'm tired of trying to think so carefully about a topic I think just isn't that complicated. 3. Not necessarily, though I'd think most teams' plans could probably be "reduced" to common simple "ingredients" (have deep/top-end talent, win the most games to get to the playoffs & win the Series, and minimize the down times as much as possible). I could be wrong, and if I am, that's fine by me. 4a. & 4b. I'd think so, and definitely not.

Good heavens, this is still splitting hairs. The point of the goals you keep insisting are unattainable -- whether they're unattainable or not is mostly irrelevant because EVERY team, in a vacuum, would love to reach those goals -- is to put the team in the best position to attain the ultimate goal (World Series championship) on a yearly basis. So of course that's what you aim for. No team probably ever reaches the ideal but you still don't ignore the principle or dismiss the vision. I wonder how Attanasio would respond if you would express your concerns to him directly.

To elaborate, in the minors in 2014, he ONLY played 3B -- ZERO at 1B, zero in LF. That was 122 games, 1,022 innings, entirely at 3B. If it went that badly in the minors that the Brewers don't feel safe putting him at 3B with any regularity, they certainly had ample justification.

Jim Adduci, sr., had a sweet, smooth swing and was always one of my favorite underdog guys to root for. He also had the quirky thing of having an OPS lower than his BA in 1988 thanks to no walks but hitting a SF.

The vision/goals/MO I articulated would represent the ideal -- an absolute standard, not a relative one. I think you set yourself up for trouble when you settle for relative standards. You have to start with the ultimate goal. Then, like any team, you have to adjust as you go based on some things you can't control -- market size, injuries, prolonged slumps or off-years, & other circumstances that affect depth, etc., as well as where you are within the plan (relative to the goal and the process of attaining those ideals). For the Brewers, the biggest issue to anticipate is the collective sum of small-market realities (revenue limitations, less fiscal room for errors or compensating for them, etc.). You deal with the issues as they arise, but you never waver from your focus on working toward the ideal. I suppose that's a long way of saying that I figured the small market realities were already understood within the ideals I laid out.

It's because of Braun's history in the IF that they moved him to the OF. It was an absolute no-brainer at the time and there's a huge reason they've never looked back on the decision in spite of major problems filling both 1B (2013-14) and 3B (much of 2015, injuries or post-Ramirez) at crucial times with competent big leaguers: his defense was comprehensively awful -- not just bad, but awful.

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. Wow, that was unnecessarily condescending. Trying to respond constructively, I'll assert that... "Successful" & "consistently successful" at the MLB level = playoff-contending if not outright dominant team with a reasonable chance to make it to & win the World Series "Successful" & "consistently successful" at the MiLB level = drafting & developing high-ceiling talent that builds a strong foundation in the minor leagues consisting of sound fundamental play, highly positive individual results on the field ("stats"), and winning teams, and which then create a pipeline of excellent young players coming up to the majors with great regularity "Organizational approach that makes sustaining that success highly likely" = 1) the attributes/plan Stearns articulated in his introductory presser, in combination with 2) the integrity and conviction to stick with that plan and make sound long-term decisions when rebuilding/reloading/retooling/re-whatever-ing becomes the necessary step I would hope that's sufficiently clearer. Do you have a different vision of what "sustainable success" is? I'd guess most BF.net posters would arrive at fairly similar descriptors of success. Rephrasing, I think Attanasio meant and what I thought most here would agree with amounts to this: - 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. At least the first two of those last three bullet points seem to describe the Cardinals to a tee. I dislike the Cardinals as a team, but I'd love to see the Brewers build a record of success that holds up well against the standard the Cardinals have set over the last however many years.