Zack Greinke [Latest: Deal for Odorizzi/Cain/Escobar/Jeffress in place? reply 464]

[filthyfrog]

Why should we try to get lucky in the next couple years and suffer an

even longer down period a few years from now? I look at it as we can

suffer for a year or two or be almost competitive the next couple years

and suffer for several years after that. We are still building up our

talent base to be consistently good.

As the pitching waxes, the offense wanes. Others have already pointed out that Prince and Weeks could both be gone by 2012 and Hart and McGehee are perennial question marks. There really aren't many impact bats to fill the holes we'll be seeing in the near future. I don't buy the argument that the team will be better served by waiting for the current prospects to pan out because the current Major Leaguers will be moving on. You have to try to improve the club any way you can, all the time.

 

The other thing I don't get is why so many people have already given up on competing in 2011. We scored the 4th most runs in the league in 2010 and can probably do something similar next year. With a league-average pitching staff, we'd be in contention. Unfortunately, the staff is far from league average at this point, but a couple key moves and a career year or two could do it.

 

I agree with the sentiment of not mortgaging the future for a short term gain, but I don't agree with the idea that we shouldn't try to improve the club. If the deal makes sense, do it. Greinke would be here for a minimum of two years, so he's more than a rental. I'd personally hate to see Odorizzi or Rogers go, but I'd be fine with

dealing any two or even three other prospects for someone like Greinke.

[paul253]

Others have already pointed out that Prince and Weeks could both be gone

by 2012 and Hart and McGehee are perennial question marks.

I'm just curious by why is McGehee a perennial question mark? Because he isn't as young as most players with his experience level? Until his production actually drops off significantly, let's give the guy some credit.

The other thing I don't get is why so many people have already given up on competing in 2011.

 

Mostly because they have no faith in Melvin to acquire the pitching we would need to acquire in order to compete. If we swing a deal for Greinke I will immediately change my outlook for 2011 and strongly suggest they keep Fielder. When he walks, you use the two picks to help restock the farm system.

[Ennder]

I'm just curious by why is McGehee a perennial question mark? Because he isn't as young as most players with his experience level? Until his production actually drops off significantly, let's give the guy some credit.

 

Because he has a skillset that falls completely off the map production wise pretty easily. Negative in the field, good but not great power, ok but not good plate discipline. Add into that pretty huge LHP split last season(he had a .750 OPS vs RHP) that may or may not continue and very erratic month to month splits and I still have no clue what to expect out of McGehee next year. I wouldn't be surprised by an .850 OPS and 3 WAR but I wouldn't be surprised by a .750 OPS and below 1 WAR either. Finally he is playing 3B with what seems to be chronic knee problems so health is a real concern with him going forward.

[amt2138]

Take it with a grain of salt but Jon Heyman from SI was on 1250 WSSP this morning and said the Royals were looking for arms that they could put in their rotation pretty soon in return for Greinke. Not really sure the Brewers have guys far enough along with the high ceiling that the Royals are looking for, if Heyman is correct.

[CheezWizHed]

And the answer to that is: Of course, who isn't? That is what we want in return for Fielder also. Now whether they get it is another matter...

[craigharmann]

Take it with a grain of salt but Jon Heyman from SI was on 1250 WSSP this morning and said the Royals were looking for arms that they could put in their rotation pretty soon in return for Greinke. Not really sure the Brewers have guys far enough along with the high ceiling that the Royals are looking for, if Heyman is correct.

OK, rethinking this a bit in light of the comment from Heyman. I wonder if Parra, Odorizzi, Green and a lower level pitcher would do it?

[Oldcity]

Why should we try to get lucky in the next couple years and suffer an even longer down period a few years from now?

How could adding Greinke be depending on luck? He's a known commodity, someone who is a proven ace. The Brewers prospects are anything but known commodities. I actually think it'd take more luck to eventually win by holding on to all their prospects than to win next year with Greinke, Yo, Braun, Fielder, and Weeks.

[logan82]

How could adding Greinke be depending on luck?

 

We are more than one pitcher away.

[Invader3K]

MLB ready pitchers would probably mean some combination of Rogers, Rivas, and maybe Jeffress. I don't know if Odorizzi would qualify as he's still probably a couple seasons away from the bigs. Not sure if I would do something like that or not.

 

A Royals fan on another message board was saying they would probably have little interest in Gamel, since they are pretty well stocked with corner players.

[TooLiveBrew]

The same is probably true, then, with Lawrie. I guess that would depend on whether or not the Royals would be in the vast minority & think Brett will be able to stick at 2B.

[nate82]

Like the Sabathia trade the Royals would get to pick from a group of players in a group. For example group A would include Lawrie, Jeffress, and Gamel the Royals would get an option of selecting one of these players. In group B it would include Rogers, Rivas, and ???? the Royals would be able to select two from that group. In group C would be the player to be named later. I'm not sure who exactly would be in group B after Rogers and Rivas probably someone like Scarpetta, Braddock, Green, and others would be in there. The package would be similar to what the Indians were able to choose from when they traded away Sabathia to the Brewers.

[paul253]

OK, rethinking this a bit in light of the comment from Heyman. I wonder

if Parra, Odorizzi, Green and a lower level pitcher would do it?

 

Yeah I was thinking Parra would be an obvious choice. You could throw Jeffress in there too. Ugh....If there was some way to keep three out of Jeffress, Rogers, Rivas, and Odorizzi I'd do pretty much whatever it takes. I really liked what I saw from Rogers last season and I think once he builds up some arm strength he'll be a pretty reliable starter, a solid #3 at worst.

 

If we could make this a three team deal with the Brewers getting Greinke, KC getting Parra, Jeffress and a prospect from the Fielder deal, and a third team getting Fielder, that would be ideal.

[Warning Track Power]

If we could make this a three team deal with the Brewers getting Greinke, KC getting Parra, Jeffress and a prospect from the Fielder deal, and a third team getting Fielder, that would be ideal.

This would be a terrible deal. As constituted, it looks like the Brewers trade Fielder, Parra and Jeffress for Greinke. I'm not sure if you meant to include anyone from a third team coming back to Milwaukee but anything short of Greinke signing a long term deal with the Brewers and turning into Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax for the next decade, then I would pass.

 

I do agree with your idea of a three team deal where Fielder goes to the third team, prospects go to KC and Greinke comes to Milwaukee. Any trade where we could parlay Prince into a legit #1 right now I am all for.

[paul253]

Yeah you're right. I forgot to include Milwaukee getting a prospect or two in addition.

[brewmann04]

Greinke that alot to give up for a guy who might be a Solid 2 Starter.

[bensheeps]

KC is going to want a pitcher back who's more advanced than the top Brewer guys. They may take a lower level guy if they get say a comparable advanced everyday player. That's why I think the Brewers would have to include Cain to get a Grienke.

I know it's a couple of pages back, but I think JohnBriggs may be on to something. With Mike Moustakas coming through the Royals system at 3rd base, I wonder if a player like Cain would mean a whole lot more to KC than someone like Gamel.

 

Would Lawrie + Jeffress + Cain be enough to get a deal done?

 

 

[dlk9s]

Greinke that alot to give up for a guy who might be a Solid 2 Starter.

Methinks Greinke is better than a "solid 2" starter.

[TheCrew07]

I think it's kind of funny that Melvin already had 5 years to acquire some quality starting pitching with longevity to go with the current position players and hasn't done it, and now people want to raid what's left of the farm for one last gasp with the same guy pulling the strings? Good luck with that.

 

Many of us called our shots going into 2009, called our shots about 2010, and if nothing changes 2011 will be no different.

 

Parra isn't good enough to start for us and yet KC would take him as a starting pitcher for Greinke? Really people? While he certainly has the talent to be a top of the rotation starter, he doesn't appear to have found the intangibles yet to enable his game to mature.

 

Isn't that how you thought of the team when Fielder, Weeks, Hart, Hardy, Gwynn, Gallardo, and Braun were all coming up?

 

Nope, I've wondering aloud and talking about the pitching for years now while most everyone else obsesses about the lineup. If you want the Brewers to contend every year then we have to start developing enough top of the rotation talent to maintain the rotation from within, we aren't ever going to get there trading those players away to go for it with 1 CY quality starting pitcher at a time. What happens if we give away all that talent and the pitcher gets hurt? Then what?

 

It doesn't matter what the prospects do or don't do down the road, the question should always be does this make the organization stronger? Not 2011 Milwaukee Brewers, the entire organization. Does this trade move the organization closer to be self sufficient pitching wise? Does it help solve the long-term needs of the organization? Greinke is a fine pitcher, but his ERA moves up and down with his K rate. Yes he was fantastic in 2009, but I don't think that level perfomance is a reasonable assumption year in and year out. He looks be similar to Yo... a safe bet to pitch around a mid 3 ERA, he's not Sabathia.

 

I understand people wanting to break the cycle of mediocrity, but it's a process that largely depends on the progression and health of our young starting pitchers. I feel similarily to this as I did when people were making the claim that "Cincy's rotation was suddenly really good out of nowhere"... really? These guys came out of nowhere? While we did nothing, signing over the hill FA pitchers, Cincy was persuing projectable young pitching trading Hamilton for Volquez. While we spent money on Wolf, they spent similarily for Chapman. You want to be competitive year in and year out? Fine, it starts with the pitching, but I don't understand why so many people think the Rays and Reds just got lucky? Nothing is more valuable than quality starting pitching, but the trick is to acquire it prior to a player being "established", because then the player costs too much to acquire and to retain.

 

Every year the focus around here changes from one CY candidate or winner to the next. The idea should be to acquire young starting pitching that you can then flip later on for more young starting pitching if you aren't able to afford the player any longer. That way the talent cycle keeps perpetuating on itself, the way most of you want to work these trades we'll be continually short of prospects because we'll always be trading 3 or 4 away at a time for a quality pitcher that might only be here 2 years. I honestly thought Melvin would flip young bats for young pitching, but that just never happened. We need to be acquiring more projectable pitching to be able to maintain, not trading it away for "proven" MLB talent. Our pitching pipeline has been a trickle... 1 player at a time, years apart. We need it to be gushing a couple of legit prospects a year so that decisions can be made based on talent and performance rather than cost, pitching is power.

 

I've watched the talent cycle through Milwaukee during Melvin's tenure, can we honestly say we're in better shape at the MLB level now than we were coming out of 2006? From where I'm sitting it looks to me like we mortgaged the future in 2008 on Sabathia and if the Mets wouldn't have collasped this first core of players wouldn't have even netted us a single post season appearance. We needed then what we need now, quality young pitching with longevity, not 10 different faceless pitchers who are all in that 4-5 range talent wise, we don't need a single Ace either, we need quality pitching, and lots of it. We've had the same holes in the rotation for years, always plugged the same way. With Parra's failure we need 2 good young pitchers beyond Rivas, Rogers, and Jeffress (if Jeffress is even a starter anymore). I mean pitchers who can post a legit low 3 ERA year in and year out. We don't need an ace, we need 3 or 4 #2s in the rotation. We have 1 in Yo... who knows what Wolf will be next season, so we need 2 more legit top of the rotation starters to hope to compete for the division much less in the post season, otherwise we're just wasting our time. We don't match up with Cincy today, and that's with Chapman pitching in relief and Volquez coming off surgery, how will we match up next season trading what little surplus we might have for just Greinke?

[paul253]

I think it's kind of funny that Melvin already had 5 years to acquire

some quality starting pitching with longevity to go with the current

position players and hasn't done it, and now people want to raid what's

left of the farm for one last gasp with the same guy pulling the

strings? Good luck with that.

 

You're comparing drafting pitchers to trading for them. Melvin has made all of one real player for prospect trade to acquire a pitcher, and you know what happened. Just because he hasn't had success drafting and developing pitchers doesn't mean he will miss on Greinke. Pretty much everyone agrees that Greinke is one of the best pitchers in all of baseball. I think you are underestimating what he'd do to this team. Gallardo would move down to the #2. That's huge. Wolf would move down to #3, and so on. And you'd eliminate your worst starter.

 

Parra isn't good enough to start for us and yet KC would take him as a starting pitcher for Greinke? Really people?

Calm down. Nobody is suggesting Parra would be anything more than a throw in. Someone whom KC can put in the rotation right away. You're acting like all of the deals proposed here have Parra as a centerpiece of the deal.

If you want the Brewers to contend every year then we have to start

developing enough top of the rotation talent to maintain the rotation

from within, we aren't ever going to get there trading those players

away to go for it with 1 CY quality starting pitcher at a time. What

happens if we give away all that talent and the pitcher gets hurt? Then

what?

 

And until then what? We watch the talented portion of our lineup walk away in free agency or become so expensive that we can't afford to sign any quality free agents while we wait and see if any of this pitching is going to develop? The pitching isn't coming next year. Why is it so out of the question to obtain someone, particularly someone who is so friggin' good?

It doesn't matter what the prospects do or don't do down the road, the

question should always be does this make the organization stronger?

 

It absolutely matters what the prospects do down the road. Pittsburgh has been pretty good at developing their own starting pitchers and look at where that has gotten them. Don't you think the Brewers wish now they had traded Ben Hendrickson and Luis Martinez when they were still prospects rather than having them turn out so poorly they couldn't even crack the rotation? The best thing for the future of the organization doesn't always mean hoarding as many prospects as you can because a lot of those prospects fail.

Nothing is more valuable than quality starting pitching, but the trick

is to acquire it prior to a player being "established", because then

the player costs too much to acquire and to retain.

 

You are making this process sound WAY easier than it really is. You are taking two of the teams that have most success recently and using them against us. The Reds were in an awesome position a few years ago of having a really good outfielder that they didn't have room for and turned him into a good young starting pitcher....good for them, but we aren't so lucky right now. Also, Chapman is ultimately going to be a reliever. I would not have wanted the Brewers to spend that much money on a reliever.

 

The idea should be to acquire young starting pitching that you can then

flip later on for more young starting pitching if you aren't able to

afford the player any longer.

That's really no secret, but again, you are making it sound a lot easier than it actually is. But in the meantime, what are we supposed to do? Just wait and hope our young pitchers turn into good enough pitchers so we can eventually trade them for more young pitchers? No...you need to go out and get the most talented players you can.

 

From where I'm sitting it looks to me like we mortgaged the future in

2008 on Sabathia and if the Mets wouldn't have collasped this first core

of players wouldn't have even netted us a single post season

appearance.

 

So you honestly think this team would have been better off with Michael Brantley (.626 OPS last season in Cleveland), Matt Laporta (.668 to go along with a .221 batting average) and Rob Bryson (relief pitcher who pitched in AA last season) than with what happened in 2008? Do you realize what kind of positive impact that one playoff appearance had on the team's attendance for basically two years? That in turn brought in more money for them to acquire free agents.

 

I mean pitchers who can post a legit low 3 ERA year in and year out.

We don't need an ace, we need 3 or 4 #2s in the rotation. We have 1 in

Yo... who knows what Wolf will be next season, so we need 2 more legit

top of the rotation starters to hope to compete for the division much

less in the post season, otherwise we're just wasting our time. We

don't match up with Cincy today, and that's with Chapman pitching in

relief and Volquez coming off surgery, how will we match up next season

trading what little surplus we might have for just Greinke?

 

I'm just curious, but since you seem to have all the answers, where all of these young top of the rotation starters who are going to post low 3 ERA's year in and year out going to come from? Trade for them? Good luck. We couldn't anything more than Daniel Hudson for one of the top offensive first basemen in all of baseball (though I am actually kind of wishing we too that deal) Teams just don't trade away young pitching anymore. Also, we do need an ace, because by default it helps the rest of the staff by eliminating your worst remaining starter.

 

Look, everyone on this board knows the importance of pitching. But you make it seem like the Brewer's brass still hasn't caught on. You can't just go get a good young pitcher. It takes time, and usually some luck (having the #1 pick the year Strasburg or Price were in the draft) The Brewers have some help coming, more than you seem to care to mention. I am really high on Mark Rogers and Jake Odorizzi, but I think Jeffress is expendable. But additionally, Rivas, Peralta, Scarpetta, and Heckathorn have all shown some promise. Next year's draft is loaded with pitching I believe and we have two top 15 picks. The year after that it's possible we could have extra first round picks from Fielder, and maybe even Weeks leaving. I am only seen one poster here who I really disagreed with and that was because he said he'd trade any three prospects, which I wouldn't do. But if you have the chance to get one of the best pitchers in all of baseball for two years, you do it. You don't worry about whether or not he'll get injured. I'm not suggesting you overpay, but you make a reasonable offer, and you improve the team.

[TheCrew07]

I think it's kind of funny that Melvin already had 5 years to acquire

some quality starting pitching with longevity to go with the current

position players and hasn't done it, and now people want to raid what's

left of the farm for one last gasp with the same guy pulling the

strings? Good luck with that.

 

You're comparing drafting pitchers to trading for them.

No, no I'm not. I'm talking about building a pipeline of talent that can cycle around itself, both through the draft and through trades. Melvin acquired all of 1 young projectable starting pitcher in his tenure in Milwaukee, this fact has been well documented previously and I see no reason to revisit the issue here.

Parra isn't good enough to start for us and yet KC would take him as a starting pitcher for Greinke? Really people?

Calm

down. Nobody is suggesting Parra would be anything more than a throw

in. Someone whom KC can put in the rotation right away. You're acting

like all of the deals proposed here have Parra as a centerpiece of the

deal.

Once again no I'm not. Parra has no value as a starting pitcher, no one is going to take him in a a trade and think they can insert him into the rotation.

If you want the Brewers to contend every year then we have to start

developing enough top of the rotation talent to maintain the rotation

from within, we aren't ever going to get there trading those players

away to go for it with 1 CY quality starting pitcher at a time. What

happens if we give away all that talent and the pitcher gets hurt? Then

what?

 

And until then what?

Be patient? Let the process run it's course? You can't undo what's already been done, there are no do overs here. Look to move the organization forward, all we've done is spin our wheels since 2007.

It doesn't matter what the prospects do or don't do down the road, the

question should always be does this make the organization stronger?

 

It

absolutely matters what the prospects do down the road. Pittsburgh has

been pretty good at developing their own starting pitchers and look at

where that has gotten them. Don't you think the Brewers wish now they

had traded Ben Hendrickson and Luis Martinez when they were still

prospects rather than having them turn out so poorly they couldn't even

crack the rotation? The best thing for the future of the organization

doesn't always mean hoarding as many prospects as you can because a lot

of those prospects fail.

No, it really doesn't... what matters is the value we've gotten back. I've previously said I value players in this manner... starting pitchers > position players > relief pitchers. I see no value in dumping any prospects for relief pitchers, they just aren't very valuable. I'd rather be trading up on the scale than always trading down. Prospects will absolutely fail, that's why we need depth instead of pinning all our hope on the 1 or 2 prospects that have actually made it through the system. Trading 3 pitching prospects away for less than 3 years doesn't help Milwaukee fill any holes, we end up with the same exact problems the following year. There's no magic here, if you don't address a hole with a long-term solution, it remains a hole. The rotation is in the exact same state as it was in 2006 and 2007. No progress has been made.

Nothing is more valuable than quality starting pitching, but the trick

is to acquire it prior to a player being "established", because then

the player costs too much to acquire and to retain.

 

You

are making this process sound WAY easier than it really is. You are

taking two of the teams that have most success recently and using them

against us. The Reds were in an awesome position a few years ago of

having a really good outfielder that they didn't have room for and

turned him into a good young starting pitcher....good for them, but we

aren't so lucky right now. Also, Chapman is ultimately going to be a

reliever. I would not have wanted the Brewers to spend that much money

on a reliever.

What? I've been talking about the Rays since prior to the 2008 season, their pitching pipeline was obvious. I've been warning people about the Reds since the 2008 off season, and the Cubs farm system isn't a joke anymore either. You don't solve organizational wide issues trading for Ace starting pitching. Somewhere we have to turn the corner so we aren't relying on scrap heap pickups and FA acquisitions to round out the rotation. Every year the Reds have made a significant move to bolster their pitching... trading for Volquez, drafting Leake, signing Chapman. Chapman may end up as a closer, but the theory is still sound... for the same yearly salary would you rather have Hoffman or Chapman? Similary the Rays traded for Jackson, Kazmier, and Garza. Either a GM spends his resources wisely or he doesn't, there isn't much inbetween here. Melvin hasn't spent wisely in FA nor has he spent prospects wisely trading down in value. Once again the object here is to someday have a self sufficient pitching pipeline, but it has to start some place, and the only team that's done it entirely through the draft that I can think of is the A's. Baltimore is close, their young pitchers just need to start pitching closer to their ability over the course of an entire season.

 

The idea should be to acquire young starting pitching that you can then

flip later on for more young starting pitching if you aren't able to

afford the player any longer.

That's

really no secret, but again, you are making it sound a lot easier than

it actually is. But in the meantime, what are we supposed to do? Just

wait and hope our young pitchers turn into good enough pitchers so we

can eventually trade them for more young pitchers? No...you need to go

out and get the most talented players you can.

I'm not saying it's easy, in fact I've said quite the opposite over the last 3 seasons. To build a foundation of quality pitching would have taken giving up pieces that would have hurt, pieces that would have been hard to part with. That's the disconnect.... I would have traded anyone not named Braun or Gallardo for more young pitching and I've been saying it since 2008. Melvin also had other opportunities to try and acquire some meaningful pitching but he always went the "MLB proven" route which limited the upside of the players we were getting in return. The last part of your statement I agree with, only not in the manner you suggest, I'm tired of the low ceiling /high floor players that Melvin typically acquires, it made sense when the team was loosing 100 games but we're long past that stage. To your point, how does acquiring Greinke make us front runners for anything? We're more than 1 pitcher away... look at the teams in the post season, even with Greinke we don't match up pitching wise with any of them. Maybe the Twins and Yankees, certainly no one from the NL. Sure we might win 6-7 more games with Greinke, but to what end?

 

My end game here is to have enough surplus pitching that we can field the best rotation in the division and trade away some excess for pieces needed elsewhere like the Rays have done. You don't get to that point burning all your prospects "going for it", the numbers just don't add up for that to be a realistic solution. Milwaukee can't just be focused on today, the organization also has to plan for tomorrow, because for us there is no such thing as signing a marquee FA to plug a hole. Large market teams can continually dump their prospects and sign known commodities in FA to plug holes, as much as some people want it to be, that's not our reality as Brewer fans. For Milwaukee, true flexibility isn't payroll flexibility, or having 10 mil to spend on a player, it's having multiple high ceiling options available when holes present themselves. True flexibility is depth of talent, not being X number of million under the break even point financially.

 

At any rate the whole "prospects will fail" argument is the most empty and unsupportable argument thrown around on this forum. Every MLB regular was once a prospect, no one goes right from the draft to MLB. Not every prospect is going to reach their ceiling and many will fail, but just as many will also succeed, but the learning curve is nearly impossible to predict because the variables are nearly limitless. As I said when we acquired Gomez, CF wasn't an organizational weakness, it was only a temporary weakness at MLB until Lo Cain was healthy. Gomez had already established a track record of suckitude in MLB, but he was going to contribute immediately in Milwaukee so Melvin made the trade. Cain is clearly the superior player now, Gomez didn't even last a full season for us in CF. I'm not against trading prospects or acquiring talent, I'm against dumping depth for temporary solutions, and I view anything less than 3 years as temporary. In the future the Brewers might have enough talent where a rental trade at the deadline would make sense, but we aren't anywhere near that point yet..

 

From where I'm sitting it looks to me like we mortgaged the future in

2008 on Sabathia and if the Mets wouldn't have collasped this first core

of players wouldn't have even netted us a single post season

appearance.

 

So you honestly think this team would have

been better off with Michael Brantley (.626 OPS last season in

Cleveland), Matt Laporta (.668 to go along with a .221 batting average)

and Rob Bryson (relief pitcher who pitched in AA last season) than with

what happened in 2008? Do you realize what kind of positive impact

that one playoff appearance had on the team's attendance for basically

two years? That in turn brought in more money for them to acquire free

agents.

Once again you're confusing value with production and inferring conclusions that I've never made I said many times prior to 2008 and during the 2008 season that the Brewers would have 1 or 2 opportunities to fix the rotation long-term. I didn't want to go after Peavy, Halladay, or Sabathia like was discussed on the forum, I wanted a player on the rise who we would control for at least 3 seasons to help carry the load with Yo. I've been very consistent on that point... we had surplus hitting talent it doesn't matter what those players do once they are moved, our return for the value we gave up is all that ultimately matters. I like Cleveland as an organization for many reasons, so I want to see all the prospects traded for Sabathia perform well. For some reason people want the prospects we trade to fail so we win the trade? Why does that even matter? It's the same reason I wanted to move Hardy for pitching following the 2008 season, even though he's my namesake on this site he was the most expendable player without a contract and if you don't address the hole with a long-term solution it remains a weakness. A weakness that Melvin has tried plugging with aging veteran FA pitchers none of which I was in favor or acquiring. Peaveyfury once said that I pissed on every move Melvin has made and he was right, I did and continue to bash Melvin because the scenarios have played out exactly the way I feared they would. You don't have to agree with me, but at least give me the courtesy of acknowledging that I've been consistent in my opinions regardless of the backlash I've taken for them. It's not about right and wrong, or me saying "i told you so", it's about finding a consistent winning philosophy for a small market organization, because the results speak for themselves.

 

We only have so many bullets in the gun and we need to make them all count. I have no problem with people who are happy with the Sabathia trade because the post season appearance meant that much to them. I do however have a problem with people who refuse to accept the chain of events that have led us to the point where we are. It's been entirely predictable and a few of us have been voicing concerns for a very long time, this domino effect has been in play for a very long time.

 

I mean pitchers who can post a legit low 3 ERA year in and year out.

We don't need an ace, we need 3 or 4 #2s in the rotation. We have 1 in

Yo... who knows what Wolf will be next season, so we need 2 more legit

top of the rotation starters to hope to compete for the division much

less in the post season, otherwise we're just wasting our time. We

don't match up with Cincy today, and that's with Chapman pitching in

relief and Volquez coming off surgery, how will we match up next season

trading what little surplus we might have for just Greinke?

 

I'm just curious, but since you seem to have all

the answers, where all of these young top of the rotation starters who

are going to post low 3 ERA'

I don't think it's possible to acquire them anymore unless a bidding war erupts for one of our position players. I won't say it's impossible as anything can happen, but I think the possibility is highly unlikely.given Melvin's history. He targets players with MLB experience who will at least contribute in some way for the MLB team, he doesn't chase unproven impact talent. The market swung back towards pitching and away from power in 2008/2009 so I think we're better off hoping that Rivas and Rogers work out wonderfully and the young pitchers behind them continue to progress rather than trying to force a winning situation by making splash trade that in the long run will ultimately set the organization back more than it would help in 2011..

 

Look,

everyone on this board knows the importance of pitching. But you make

it seem like the Brewer's brass still hasn't caught on.

That's because Melvin didn't catch on, he just follows the market cycles and never exploits the market, nor does he spend money wisely. Once again, I never once said it was easy, I just have a very strong opinion regarding the direction this organization needs to take to be competitive on a yearly basis. We've already wasted 2 years of the current core trying to patch the rotation enough each year to win instead of fix the root cause of the pitching issues. At some point enough is enough and it's time for a new strategy, at some point we need to cure the disease instead of continually treating the symptoms.

[paul253]

Melvin acquired all of 1 young projectable starting pitcher in his

tenure in Milwaukee, this fact has been well documented previously and I

see no reason to revisit the issue here.

I will not argue the results of Melvin's tenure. However, it seems a little odd to on the one side argue how important it is to develop our own pitchers then on the other point out how fruitless those attempts have been the last few years. It's not like Melvin and Co. haven't tried. It seems like you should be arguing more for Melvin to lose his job due to his inability to develop home grown pitching.

Parra has no value as a starting pitcher, no one is going to take him in

a a trade and think they can insert him into the rotation.

That's simply not true. Look at some of the guys they started last year and their results. Luke Hochevar (17 starts 4.81 ERA), Sean O'Sullivan (13 starts 6.11 ERA), Kyle Davies (32 starts 5.34 ERA) Brian Bannister (23 starts 6.34 ERA) Bruce Chen (23 starts 4.17 ERA). Overall team ERA of 4.97. You can look at those results and automatically declare Manny Parra useless to them?

 

Look to move the organization forward

 

And you think trading one or two pitching prospects for one of the better pitchers in all of baseball, whom we'll have for at least two seasons, is going to equal this organization moving backwards?

all we've done is spin our wheels since 2007.

 

That's because we have no pitching! So why aren't we going out and getting pitching?

 

what matters is the value we've gotten back.

 

And the value we've gotten back from a lot of our pitching prospects in the past few years has been zero. Admittedly Odorizzi, Rogers, and Jeffress have more upside than most we've had lately, but in the end you're still talking about a guy who hasn't pitched above A ball (Odorizzi) and older prospect who is just now coming back from significant injuries (Rogers) and a guy who has yet to have success as a starting pitching above A ball and whose control is a serious question mark (Jeffress). I like Rogers and Odorizzi as much as anyone, but there are far from sure things. And I think Jeffress eventually ends up in the bullpen, which will kill his trade value.

 

we end up with the same exact problems the following year. There's no

magic here, if you don't address a hole with a long-term solution, it

remains a hole. The rotation is in the exact same state as it was in

2006 and 2007. No progress has been made.

 

You are completely missing the point. Pitching was a huge problem last season, and we MIGHT have one guy (Rogers) ready to start in the majors in 2011. That means you'll have to find pitching from somewhere for 2011. If you acquire Greinke, you are not hurting your 2011 team at all because you aren't trading anyone who would be starting in 2011. He would be a significant upgrade to the staff. He would also buy you some time until the prospects actually are ready to pitch in Milwaukee. There are some decent guys in AA ball and below next year and will be ready about the time Greinke would leave if we get him and doesn't want to extend. And don't sleep on the fact that unlike most stud pitchers, Greinke does not want to pitch in a big market like New York or Boston. If we can offer him enough money and are winning, there's a good shot he would stay in Milwaukee.

What? I've been talking about the Rays since prior to the 2008 season, their pitching pipeline was obvious

Yeah you are taking the team that has the most success in all of baseball and comparing them to us. That's fine, but you can't expect every organization to be run like TB. Also, as I've said before, teams like TB and Cincy have been lucky to have a good, young outfielder (Young and Hamilton) who they had no room for and were able to flip for pitching. Milwaukee doesn't really have anyone like that. Possibly McGehee, but that's about all.

 

Every MLB regular was once a prospect,

 

Yes they were. And every Major League has at least 5 farm teams full of prospects, the vast majority of whom never make it to the major leagues.

I said when we acquired Gomez, CF wasn't an organizational weakness, it

was only a temporary weakness at MLB until Lo Cain was healthy.

 

Not sure why you are using Gomez as an example as he seems to disprove your point. We trading an established Major League Player (Hardy) for a prospect with a high ceiling (Gomez) and the prospect has done nothing. Perhaps Melvin knew Hardy's production was going to drop off significantly, but the Brewers certainly did not get someone worth much of anything.

At some point enough is enough and it's time for a new strategy, at

some point we need to cure the disease instead of continually treating

the symptoms.

 

So again, I ask, what do we do until then? Throw out home grown pitchers (like Parra) simply because they are cheap? You say we wasted 2 years of the current core, but how bad would it been it instead of free agent and scrap heap guys we only used guys we developed on our own?

 

We really aren't in that much of a disagreement here. For one, if acquiring Greinke would take two or all of Odorizzi, Jeffress, and Rogers, I probably wouldn't do it. I agree that we need young, cheap pitching. And I agree we need to focus on drafting high ceiling pitchers as opposed to "inning eaters" and college guys drafted simply to get their quicker. That being said. You can't rely entirely on home grown guys, especially if they are not producing. Again, if you have the opportunity to acquire one of the best pitchers in all of baseball, you do it.

[TooLiveBrew]

That's because we have no pitching! So why aren't we going out and getting pitching?

 

As best I understand it, TheCrew07's main point is to build something organizationally so you don't have to go out & get IMPACT PITCHING from other organizations. I'm assuming he'd rather see multiple trades to bring in guys still in the minors, rather than burning up several of the Brewers' top prospects just to get one player... and in Greinke's case, one player that would only be guaranteed to be with the team for two seasons. Then you're left with the same problem again, but three/four/whatever fewer prospects to go out & acquire another IMPACT PITCHER.

[paul253]

I understand that you need to stock up on arms in the minors, but at some point you need to get that impact pitcher. You can't just continue to hope all of your prospects will turn out. Two years of Greinke is worth quite a bit I think. In the time he is here, you can still draft high ceiling pitchers and try to trade for some too, but teams aren't as likely to give up good young pitching any more. He mentioned the Kazmir trade a few years ago. That was an absolutely horrible trade by the Mets, and I don't think it's likely a deal like that will happen again. We dangled our best offensive player last season and we got offered Daniel Hudson. Not that Hudson isn't a good player, but it goes to show hard it is to acquire the type of pitcher he says we need to acquire. That leaves the draft. I am really high on next years draft due to the combination of two top 15 picks and a good pitching crop. But the fact remains if you are going to compete year in and year out then you need to hit on your draft picks. Lately the Brewers haven't hit on their pitching, though it does seem like it's getting better. So you have two options if you want to try to compete. 1) Free agency and 2) Trades. I have been calling all along for the Brewers to trade for good young pitching (I've mentioned Michael Pineda for Prince Fielder several times). But if you can get that ace pitcher, I think you have to go for it.

[colbyjack]

A few notes on some of the recent comments.

 

For the most part I agree with TheCrew's comments about the pitching and how the team needs to build that base from within, a stance he has been pretty consistent with the past few years. However, if the team wants to be competitive, they are going to have to make some aggressive moves this offseason to go out and get it. I've mentioned this before, but if you don't think they should, I'm guessing you also don't think they should be aggressively trying to compete next year. That's fine, as I certainly understand and appreciate any argument suggesting they aren't in a position to go for it next year. However, I don't think the organization feels the same way. We know Melvin went hard after Jake Peavy in '09, looked into Roy Halladay last offseason, and acquired CC Sabathia. I think he'll be involved heavily to try and acquire Greinke this offseason. Melvin's job has to be somewhat on the line, and Attanasio seems passionate about winning.

 

Speaking of winning, it's not easy. We should know as Brewers fans, but I don't like the idea of waiting to see how our prospects will turn out. We know that even with the incredible talent the team graduated to the big league level over the last 5-7 years, they still have only made the playoffs once during that time. Making the playoffs isn't easy, and waiting for the next wave or batch of youngsters to come up and help isn't very comforting. Even if they do make the big-leagues, as we saw with Manny Parra, there is so much more involved for one to be successful than talent alone.

 

As for trading young players, I know Robert R (if you're still out there) often would say that the team that wins any given trade is the team that gets the best player in return. So, if the Brewers give up a lot of talent to get Greinke, they in principle would still be the winners of such a deal since they would be getting a very good talent. He would make the pitching staff better simply by his addition and also because it makes Gallardo our 2nd best starter and Wolf our 3rd. I agree that more work would need to be done, but there are enough names to round out the bottom end of the rotation. The move could make the Brewers competitive and in the hunt through the first half of the season, meaning they could add another arm (or more) at the deadline (or promote one from within depending on who they would deal).

 

Trading for CC certainly didn't hurt the club. There was a lot of talent involved in that deal, and due to hindsight we are able to see how many things can and will happen to prevent good, young players from being productive ones at the big-league level. Others have provided examples, but for every Jeff Bagwell and John Smoltz that teams steal in trades, there a lot more of the likes of Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller who fail to reach their lofty potential.

 

And if it doesn't work out, you could always flip Greinke for younger players either next year or prior to him becoming a free agent after the 2012 season. Even if you keep him, you get comp picks for him (and Fielder, should they retain him), which could help re-stock the system. The team does have a pair of first-rounders next year, and they may have another pair in the 2012 draft and the 2013 draft depending on how things shake out.

 

I think the Brewers have more than enough pieces to be a realistic trade partner with KC, either on their own or should they deal Fielder getting a 3rd team in involved. Basically, I'd rather see them go for it and fail than go with what they have. It's better to love and lost than to never have loved at all, right http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif?

[paul253]

Colby thanks for the comments. My stance is pretty similar to yours. And Crew, like I said, I actually don't think we are all that far off. I realize how important it is to be able to develop your own pitching. And I will go further to say that if getting Greinke requires giving up all all three of Odorizzi, Rogers, and Jeffress, I would not do it. I would also have a hard time giving up both Rogers and Odorizzi. I'd much rather include one of them along with a Gamel or a Lawrie. I really liked what I saw from Rogers.

 

My only problem is that if we wait for all these guys to have success at the major league level, Fielder will be gone. Weeks may well be gone. Hart will probably be in the last year of his deal or he'll also be gone. We don't have the offensive weapons in the minors to replace those guys and still hope to compete. And in the meantime, attendance will fall off significantly, making it even harder to compete than it already is.

 

I think getting Greinke would be huge. You'd still need to get one more pitcher, and I'd even be ok with trading Fielder if it can net you a prospect like Pineda from Seattle, Britton/Arrieta for Baltimore, or someone comparable that isn't going to be gone in a year .