Should the Brewers be a seller instead?

[pebadger]

If you want the Brewers to be competitive every year, I'm assuming you're including this season. In the history of the franchise this is one of the most competitive seasons they've had, warts and all to date. So why would they "sell", as that term is generally used?

 

Now, if they could find a way to make a daring move that would help them both now AND in the future, it may be worth considering. But even then you risk so much in terms of disrupting the team as currently constructed that a move gone bad, even if well thought-out, would bring a lot of questions simply because it went against the conventional wisdom.

[jazzytrav]

I feel like the entire argument is based on road record. Outside of that, any logic you use to say the Brewers should be sellers could be applied to every team, regardless of record. Just examine the one statement, "1st place Brewers trying to sell at the deadline." I get that you're trying to look outside the box, but I think you're looking a bit too far.

 

What I could see is an even trade of some sort for a SS. If someone wanted Hart and could offer an equal value SS, you might be on to something. But the first response was probably the biggest reason why it would never happen...If we traded Fielder for prospects right now, Mark A and DM would be staring down pitchforks.

[Oldcity]

There is no difference between a playoff team and a World Series team, especially at this point.

[HiAndTight]

Yes I am only half kidding about this and don't expect them to because the Brewers obviously went "all-in" this year, but is that a mistake? In my opinion they are not living up to expectations, not even close, and I am convinced that even if they sneak into the playoffs they'll be a one a done because they can't win on the road. After this year, Prince is gone and the chances of making the playoffs are even smaller. After that, obviously Wolf, Marcum and Greinke are free agents and who knows what will happen. I've heard the market for starting pitchers is so weak the Colorado is considering trading Jimenez in the hopes people will look more at his 2010 than 2011. They are said to be looking for two or three high ceiling prospects. I've read that as many as 12 teams have checked in on Jimenez. Would Marcum bring something equal or better in return considering his contract ends at the same time (Jimenez has the option to terminate his contract after next season if he gets traded) and he seems to be pitching better than Jimenez? If you could get a Banuelos or Betances from NY or something similar from another team would you go for it? Or if you get a #1 or #2 ceiling prospect pitcher for Greinke? And teams are always looking for relief help. I understand Texas is looking for a closer. Why not trade Axford, the ultimate sell-high player? If you could get one legit starting pitching prospect why not go for it? You still have K-Rod for the 9th and can offer him arby after the year. Closers are the most overrated position in the game. And finally Fielder. Obviously trading him would amount to giving up (unless you think we could still make the playoffs with Gamel) but just imagine what one of the leading MVP candidates could bring in. Probably at least 2 or 3 high ceiling position prospects.

 

This team is not a World Series team. I hate to say it because I am a huge fan and a partial season ticket holder. But considering that the team is going to lose Fielder I just have a bad feeling that this team is going to be no better than a .500 team for the next 4-5 seasons. They just don't have any impact prospects anywhere in the system and the current core of the team are all in their prime and getting expensive. Just imagine how well you could rebuild the system by trading Axford, Fielder, Marcum and Greinke. And with guys like Braun, Hart, Morgan, Weeks, McGehee, Gallardo, and Wolf, future regular Gamel, and possible future regulars in Green, Gindl and Schafer, it's not like you're going to be trotting out a bunch of AAAA players every day. If you can trade the four I listed and get replacements for Marcum and Greinke's rotation spots who have #1-#3 potential plus additional high ceiling prospects, I think you need to strongly consider doing so even knowing that it may ruin your chance to win the division this season. The future of the organization is a huge question mark and I hate to see them stick to this "win now at all costs" motto when the "winning now" isn't going so well.

This statement totally flies in the face of recent baseball history.

 

First of all, they're IN FIRST PLACE despite having not played consistent baseball.

 

Second, they're a team that has VERY good players in several spots and then massive holes in other spots. That makes it that much easier to upgrade your team.

 

Trading for...just for arguments sake, Aramis Ramirez and Jamey Carroll completely changes the way this team looks. That gives you 8 everyday players who are capable of hitting .280+, and 6 guys capable of hitting 25+ HR's.

 

Even if you go with a lesser 3rd basemen, a Wilson Betemit or a Chase Headley(though he may not be a lesser 3rd) you're still looking at massive upgrades.

 

You simply have to give this team a chance to let things play out, hope they get hot at the right time. This is the most talented staff the city of Milwaukee has ever seen since the Braves left town, and despite Greinke's struggles, you still see prolonged bouts of dominance from him.

 

 

And as for the future, you're looking at getting a lot of compensation picks.

Fielder 1st+Supplemental first

KRod-Same

Aram-If you were to trade for him, same.

Hawkins-Potentially a Supplemental pick.

 

That's as many as 8 1st and 1st rd supplemental picks to go with this past years draft.

 

Add in the fact that we're going to be able to increase our payroll substantially with the new TV deal, and I don't think our window closes nearly as much as some suggest. In fact, I think next year gives us the potential to alter the dynamic of this team every so slightly and focus on defense at 3rd, SS and 1B, thereby improving our pitchers a GREAT deal and helping to avoid some of the blowup's that Greinke had in Colorado that cost us 3 runs and cost him probably a full inning, if not more.

 

 

With respect, I think this is about the worst possible idea. You completely destroy any good will with the fans and you cheat the organization out of the opportunity to win a World Series. And again, just stating at this point that the Brewers aren't a World Series team. I'd venture a guess that the Rockies, Cardinals, Marlins, Rangers, and several others weren't "World Series teams," at some point in their respective World Series years in the past decade. You can argue why we're so much different, but the fact of the matter is we're a very talented team that is at least keeping it's head above the water.

 

Gimme a short series with

Greinke+Gallardo+Marcum and a 1-6 of Hart/Morgan/Braun/Prince/Weeks/Ramirez and I'd rather hope to get hot than just give up.

[HiAndTight]

If they can get Greinke and Gallardo going at the same time, I like their chances against anybody, including Philly.

 

That's a pretty big if though. Gallardo is the model of

inconsistency this season and Greinke hasn't been pitching very well

all season long.

 

Hardly. A big "if," is Betancourt turning it around and hitting .280/.360 the rest of the way, or calling up Peralta and having him have an Edlred like run the rest of the half.

 

Expecting a pitcher who has as good of stuff as anyone in the game, who's having a historically unlucky season and who is just two years removed from a Bob Gibson circa 1967 type season, it's hardly a huge if that his bottom line will represent his peripherals..which hereto now are absolutely absurd. 12 K's per 9? 6-1 KK/BB ratio? As we saw in Col, his defense has been killing him. Two moderate trades to improve SS and 3rd is hardly out of the question.

 

And likewise with Gallardo. What has he done in his career that suggests it's a big if that he could get hot and perform well down the stretch?

 

 

Those two are more LIKELY to happen than unlikely, meaning it's not a "big if." And when a great deal of your success is contingent upon those two stepping it up a touch, as opposed to what many other teams are relying on to hit their stride, I'll take my chances every day of the week.

 

 

I'm a guy who's always been a die hard fan. I remember getting all excited when this team won 10-11 in a row in the midst of a 90 loss season about 6-7 years ago. I'd have been absolutely fine with them dealing Prince, Hart, McGehee and Axford before the season and having gone into full fledged rebuilding mode.

 

But now? They might even lost my money if they were to do something this ridiculous.

[RobDeer 45]

It's all about who gets hot late. If we get in we have a shot.

[brewmann04]

we need to get a better defense first before we can make the playoffs.

[Ennder]

The Pirates should not be buyers, the Brewers, Cardinals and Reds should be without a doubt. You don't get that many shots at the playoffs and all of them are in solid position to make it and once you make it you don't have to be the best team to win it all. To be honest if the Brewers were sellers it would be just about the dumbest move I've seen in baseball, they define the type of team that has to go for it now.

[dlk9s]

Can we just lock this thread already? Between this and "Brewers you don't like to watch," it's a bad day for new threads.

[kramnoj]

and I am convinced that even if they sneak into the playoffs they'll be a one a done because they can't win on the road.

 

The 87 Twins only won 1 road game in the playoffs, and had a .358 winning percentage on the road in the regular season. The Brewers this year after tonight's lost have a .360 WP.

 

Your conviction does not match history.

 

Edit:

The season is 60% over and they are tied for 12th in the league out

of 16 teams in ERA. The pitching staff doesn't just need get better.

They need to get a lot better.

 

 

In another comparison to the 87 Twins, their pitching was 11th out of 14. That team also won only 85 games total.

 

The Brewers aren't anywhere near WS favorites right now, but tearing down the team for prospects isn't a guarantee of a better shot in the future.

[bill hAll Star]

I have been a person asking to sell at the deadline most years with various proposals to fill the minor league pitching pools. I also like rookie contract/arby buyout deals and Weeks-esque deals.

 

Basically, I cannot say I'm anywhere near the ballpark of Andrew Friedman in terms of brains, but my philosophy for the team during this building stretch has been in line with how he operates.

 

All of that said, we still need to be buyers this year. We put the chips into the middle of the table and have depleted the farm system. Looking from July 19, 2011, we need to buy a 3B, SS (or fill 3B from within if we feel confident), and maybe keep rounding out the bullpen. We know Melvin is all-in, so let's just hope he accidentally finds positive value players (even though he doesn't know what WAR is) to fill out the roster and we have a prayer down the stretch.

[paul253]

First of all, they're IN FIRST PLACE despite having not played consistent baseball.

 

Not any more. For all the people using the "they are in first place" excuse it's not the case any more. Yes it's just half a game out of first, but if people can use that argument when they are in first by half a game, I can use it when they are tied for second and a half game out.

 

Trading for...just for arguments sake, Aramis Ramirez and Jamey Carroll

completely changes the way this team looks. That gives you 8 everyday

players who are capable of hitting .280+, and 6 guys capable of hitting

25+ HR's.

 

Who are you going to trade to get Aramis Ramirez and Jamey Carroll? You think Chicago is just going to give us Ramirez because they are out of it? If they can get two picks for him we'd have to give up a heck of a lot to get him and we don't have a heck of a lot to give up. Seriously, who are going to trade to get Ramirez and Carroll? Peralta? Thornburg? Davis? Schafer? It'll probably take 4 prospects to get the two of them, this on top of the two we have to give to the Mets. What do you think giving up 6 prospects out of the already worst farm system is going to do for the future of the franchise?

 

Expecting a pitcher who has as good of stuff as anyone in the game,

who's having a historically unlucky season and who is just two years

removed from a Bob Gibson circa 1967 type season, it's hardly a huge if

that his bottom line will represent his peripherals..which hereto now

are absolutely absurd. 12 K's per 9? 6-1 KK/BB ratio? As we saw in

Col, his defense has been killing him. Two moderate trades to improve

SS and 3rd is hardly out of the question.

 

You can use the "potential" argument all you want but it doesn't hold water with me. The fact is, he hasn't been pitching overly well this season. If you look at this season compared to his Cy Young Season....his WHIP is significantly higher, his ERA is more than double, he's already given up as many home runs through 14 starts as he did in 33 starts then (in the AL no less), his batting average against is significantly higher, he's giving up more fly balls, he's giving up more hits per 9 innings, and so on. You're basing this all on his walk to strikeout ratio? And you say the defense is killing him? Well I got news for you. The defense isn't getting any better. So he's gonna have to do it on his own.

 

What has he done in his career that suggests it's a big if that he could get hot and perform well down the stretch?

 

While you are looking at his history, I am looking at what he is doing this season. He can get hot down the stretch. He's a good pitcher and certainly has the ability. But so far this season, he's not pitching well consistently. He's been having a lot of bad starts. Looking at his game log I'd say 7 or 8 of his 20 starts were bad starts. That's about 35 or 40% of his starts. You cannot rely on someone who has a bad start two out of every five games.

 

Those two are more LIKELY to happen than unlikely,

 

This statement just irritates me. Why is it automatically more likely for them to start doing something that neither has done all season long than it is for them to keep doing what they have been doing?

 

Your conviction does not match history.

 

The 87 Twins only had to play one series to get into the World Series. The 2011 Brewers could not win the World Series by winning one road game. You are taking a major outlier and trying to use it to disprove my point.

In another comparison to the 87 Twins, their pitching was 11th out of 14. That team also won only 85 games total.

 

So just to be clear, you are going back 24 years to find a team with a comparable ranking to find one who won the World Series?

 

More recently, I went back and checked out the National League team who entered the playoffs with the worst record of the four playoff teams. Since 1995 (16 years), the team with the worst record made the World Series three times (06 St Louis with 83 wins, 02 Giants who had 95 wins and 00 Mets who had 94 wins. As you can see, two of the three teams had pretty good records, much better than Milwaukee's is on track be, when they made the Series). So if the Brewers make the playoffs, and assuming the would enter with the worst record as they currently sit 5 or 6 games behind the Giants for that race, chances are not good for them to make the Series. It can happen, but usually doesn't. That's why I say I can't see them as a World Series team even if they do sneak into the playoffs.

 

I feel like the entire argument is based on road record.

 

This has much more to do with the fact that this team is not nearly as good as I thought they'd be and after this season it may very well be a long, long fall down to mediocrity that's going to take half a decade to climb out of because the system is bereft or any impact talent. IF they can resign Marcum and Greinke, they may have a chance to continue being successful, but there's going to be a lot of money tied up in a relatively few players. That means the system is going to have to get better in a hurry.

 

Do I think the Brewers are going to sell? Of course not. If I were the Brewers would I sell? Probably not because the common fan would never forgive me. From a pure baseball perspective where the goal is to compete every single year, would I then consider trading Fielder Marcum Greinke and Axford? Absolutely.

[Ennder]

There is not a team in the NL Central that has better than 87 win talent, the Brewers are on pace to win 85 games. They are more or less exactly where I would have expected them to be. One team in the central is going to get hot down the stretch and win it, no reason to think the Brewers are any less likely than the other teams.

[davemakovec]

Hardly. A big "if," is Betancourt turning it around and hitting .280/.360 the rest of the way, or calling up Peralta and having him have an Edlred like run the rest of the half.

Is that OBP/SLG? If it is, he might, and I mean, MIGHT, have a chance of reaching that goal. I mean, it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

Anyway, the Brewers, as the smallest market team in the Major Leagues, have a cycle of competitiveness that they (and we as fans) can realistically expect: 3-6 years of rebuilding/stocking the farm system, then with good moves, players panning out (Dave Krynzel, anyone?), and some luck, can contend for 2-4 years. That's if things pan out, and you don't have a stretch like1994-2005 (or 2006-2011) when you only produce one viable starting pitcher out of your farm system (2006-2011 made up for by the amazing wealth of big bats in position players).

 

Is it possible to contend more frequently, but you have to have extreme good luck and extreme savvy/ruthlessness in making moves and maximizing payroll.

[DuWayne Steurer]

The thing about saying that "this team isn't world series caliber, even if they make the playoffs" is that it's a loaded statement. Let's just say that once the playoffs start, everyone has an equal chance. You still have an 87.5% chance of being right that a given team isn't going to win it all.

 

Recently, the 83 win Cardinals won the world series. The 2007 Rockies were playing .500 ball until about the beginning of September. Last years Rangers were not exactly a great team.

 

The Brewers are on pace for 85 wins. If they win 2 or 3 in a row, that's suddenly on pace for 90. If they lose 2-3 in a row, they'll be on pace for about 82-83 wins. Selling at this point, I'm sorry, it's just a terrible idea.

 

Weeks, Hart, Braun, and Gallardo are locked up long term. There's plenty of money available to offer long term deals to Marcum and Greinke. Lucroy is under team control for at least 4 more years. Even without Fielder, there's still a strong core, and selling off at this point completely undermines the efforts of locking up those core players to long term deals. You don't go long term if you're not in the 'contend' portion of the success cycle, which is where the Brewers are. You can say that the Brewers are an 'average at best team without Fielder', but that's not a quantifiable statement. You're not replacing Fielder with a known quanitity. SOMEONE has to play first base, and I'm assuming that person will have stats, of some variety, that are measurable.

 

Taking the statements "the Brewers are in first place/The Brewers are NOT in first place" both out of the equation, the truth is, the Brewers are in a playoff race. That's not even arguable. They are in a 3, maybe 4 team race for the central division. Pissing that chance away will do nothing but completely alienate the casual fan base that have shown up in the past 5 + years in droves. There will be no upper swing to the success cycle when they're not bringing in nearly 3 million per, which is almost a guarantee if they do a sell-off in a year in which they are legitimately contending.

 

Whether anyone THINKS they are good enough or not is up to debate. What's NOT up to debate is that right now, despite the shortcomings, the Brewers ARE in a playoff race. That's a true and known fact. Selling now will be a huge slap in the face to the fans.

 

I'd also like to know, if selling is so important to the success cycle, who is the last prospect the Brewers traded for that turned out to be a key piece of a winning team? Because honestly, right now, I'm coming up empty on that one.

 

Keep your guys. Compete. Get the comp picks if they walk.

[JohnBriggs12]

The Brewers clearly are underachieving. They should be a 90-92 win team. As someone that followed the late 70's early 80's team, it really bothers me that this team, unlike those, doesn't bring it every night. They appear to play only when the spirit moves them or when they feel 100%. Other than Morgan who's out there leaving it all on the field, the rest seem content just to be in the race, and not to dominate it. This pitching staff could use a Mike Caldwell in the worst way.

 

 

But that doesn't mean you sell now. There are over 60 games left. Hopefully, they'll start playing with a greater sense of urgency sooner rather than later.

[dlk9s]

First of all, they're IN FIRST PLACE despite having not played consistent baseball.

 

Not any more. For all the people using the "they are in first place" excuse it's not the case any more. Yes it's just half a game out of first, but if people can use that argument when they are in first by half a game, I can use it when they are tied for second and a half game out.

Now I'm beginning to think you're just trolling.

[kramnoj]

The 2011 Brewers could not win the World Series by winning one road game.

 

That's too definitive. Since the NL has homefield, the Brewers wouldn't need to win a road game in the WS, if they got that far. As far as the series before that, we don't know right know how everything would shake out.

So just to be clear, you are going back 24 years to find a team with a comparable ranking to find one who won the World Series?

 

Absolutely. If you are saying that a team like the current Brewers can't win the World Series, I offer an example of a team that has some similarities that has done so.

 

That's why I say I can't see them as a World Series team even if they do sneak into the playoffs.

 

That isn't proof that they can't make the World Series. It is evidence that it will be tough to get there, but I don't see anyone saying something to the contrary.

 

 

This has much more to do with the fact that this team is not nearly as good as I thought they'd be

 

As pointed out earlier, this isn't a problem with the Brewers, this is a problem with your expectations.

[TheCrew07]

I'm not in favor of selling, but comparisons to the '87 Twins are way off the mark. Sure a team can get hot and win a couple of series that it shouldn't, maybe even the World Series, the 2006 Cardinals proved that too. However, using a once in a generation anomoly as a standard of performance seems misguided at best to me, throwing out the exception to the rule as definitive proof of possible success? Well I might win significant money from Power Ball tomorrow as well... the odds aren't as long, but you're talking very steap odds against to match the level of success of the '87 Twins.

 

The NL East has far and away the 2 best teams in the NL from where I'm sitting, the AL East has 3 of the best teams in the AL. To win a World Series our pitching staff doesn't match up well with the Yankees or Red Sox, patient teams that don't swing at garbage out of the zone shred our pitchers. We match up much better against teams with a similar approach as our hitters where Greinke especially can get hitters out who are swinging at secondary stuff out of the zone, like the Rays, but it seems unlikely the Rays can make the playoffs given the hole they've dug. To get out of the NL I think the Braves and Phillies are vastly superior teams while San Francisco is slightly better. I think the Brewers match up well against anyone in the NL West and Central, but in a 7 game series I don't think we match up well with Phillies or Braves at all, I'd feel better about a 5 game series against those teams.

 

If the Brewers don't make the playoffs this season then I don't know how anyone could conclude that Melvin's tenure as GM hasn't been a horrible let down. To make 1 playoff appearance with 2 HOF talents on your roster is basically inexcusable, and realistically we should have come up short in 2008 as well. He would have traded away a mountain of assets for one 4 game playoff appearance... sure that's better than the previous GMs did, but not anywhere near as good as it could have been. It would mean that the Brewers didn't even manage to win the division 1 time in his tenure and the central hasn't exactly been the pinnacle of MLB during that time.

 

Selling is out the question, Melvin didn't make all these trades to sell now, his job is on the line. However I do think the talent on this team has been consistently overvalued by many Brewer fans, both on an individual player and team basis. This team has many holes... if we get to the playoffs success will depend entirely on the draw the Brewers get, but our pitching staff just doesn't match up well against the elite teams in either league. People will talk about how if we didn't give away 5-6 games we'd be right there, and while that's true standing wise, those losses don't matter from a match up perspective.

[kramnoj]

'm not in favor of selling, but comparisons to the '87 Twins are way off the mark. Sure a team can get hot and win a couple of series that it shouldn't, maybe even the World Series, the 2006 Cardinals proved that too. However, using a once in a generation anomoly as a standard of performance seems misguided at best to me, throwing out the exception to the rule as definitive proof of possible success?

 

The point of bringing up the 87 Twins isn't that the Brewers are likely to win the WS. It's to show that it can be done. And of course, two mid 80s teams wining the World Series in the past quarter century is much better odds than some silly comparison to the lottery. Talk about way off the mark.

 

I believe that the Brewers chances of winning a World Series are higher with this current roster than they would be at some tenuous future date with the prospects obtained from trading away the current players. If someone is convinced that trading away current players will provide a better shot at winning the World Series, I would like that person to provide a convincing case of specifically who would be obtained by trading away current Brewers and when those players would come together with current Brewers prospects and show a future roster. If someone can't do that, they are just lazy and not basing their argument on any kind of logic.

[monty57]

Yes, winning the World Series is hard. Only one team each year does it. The odds are against any individual team winning the World Series, so by the logic of this thread (the odds are against the Brewers winning the World Series, so they should sell), then every team should sell every year. If you can see the flawed logic in that, then you can see the flawed logic to this whole thread.

 

In reality, the Brewers have better odds of winning the World Series this year than they have had in most of their existence. If you would like to trade that away, then I'd have to disagree with you, as would probably 99.9% of the 3,000,000 or so fans who walk through Miller Park's gates.

 

Off the top of my head, selling now would:

 

1) Alienate the fan base

2) Destroy your chances for the playoffs now and potentially in the future

3) Cost yourself revenue from the playoffs this season and from a diminished fan base going forward

4) Upset your television execs who apparently just signed a bigger-money deal with you, as they'd benefit from the increased viewership of a playoff race. That would likely lead to ad execs being wary of dealing with you in the future

5) Make future free agents wary of joining the Brewers, or signing off on being traded to the Brewers if they're on the no-trade.

 

I remember being laughed at for being a Brewers fan. We were a joke of a franchise and that's probably why we averaged around 10,000 or so fans per game in the mid-90's to mid 2000's. It has been a long road back to respectability, and "selling" now would be a big step in returning the Brewers to laughing-stock status.

 

If we lose the rest of the games this month leading up to trade deadline, or if multiple key players get season-ending injuries then sure, we think about selling. In almost any other case it would be a terrible move.

[TheCrew07]

Why do they have the best odds now than they've ever had as a franchise? Because this is the "best" team? I'm not sure I'd agree with that and even if the team is better than 2008 that logic doesn't seem to take into account how much teams like the Phillies and Braves have improved.

 

I never said winning the lottery, I said significant money, which to me is >=$100 on a $1 investment, then again maybe you don't play the lottery and didn't realize there were different payouts. A quick look at baseball-reference reveals that no team other than the '87 Twins has won a title with a road winning percentage that low through 1960 which is where I chose to stop loooking, there may be another occurrence someplace farther back in history but I doubt it.

 

There's always a chance, but to point to the Twins as proof it's possible is playing pretend as far as I'm concerned, Miller Park doesn't give the Brewers a Metrodome type advantage. The roster as it's constructed today may not even be good enough to win the division.

[paul253]

I'd also like to know, if selling is so important to the success cycle,

who is the last prospect the Brewers traded for that turned out to be a

key piece of a winning team? Because honestly, right now, I'm coming up

empty on that one.

That's not the point. Teams who sell are usually way out of the playoff race so them turning around and getting good immediately isn't likely to happen. The point is not strictly about selling but about building the organization from within, which includes trading for prospects. That's how Milwaukee got good to begin with and that's what they need to do to stay competitive.

 

As far as examples though, I'd say the Jake Peavy trade worked out ok so far for SD. Richard has a sub 4 ERA, like he did last season, while Peavy hasn't done much of anything for Chicago and has been hurt most of the time. Obviously the Brewers trading Sexson worked out ok, as did the Marlins trading Josh Beckett. Just because these deals did not occur at the deadline doesn't mean you can't classify them as "sellers" because they still took their best player and traded him away to a team who thought they'd contend.

 

That's too definitive. Since the NL has homefield, the Brewers wouldn't

need to win a road game in the WS, if they got that far. As far as the

series before that, we don't know right know how everything would shake

out.

 

Yes obviously it's an assumption that the team that comes out of the NL will have the worst record in the league. Right now that team (Pittsburgh) is 4.5 games behind SF for that spot so the assumption isn't all that out of line. It's not too definitive to say that if things play out like they are on pace to, Milwaukee won't be able to win the World Series by winning one road game like your Minnesota example did. It's possible the team could move up and get into home field advantage in the first round of course but only time will tell if that happens.

 

It has been a long road back to respectability, and "selling" now would

be a big step in returning the Brewers to laughing-stock status.

 

So you think by trading Fielder, who we will lose anyway, Axford, who while good is replaceable by K-Rod, Greinke who has an ERA over 5 and Marcum that we will go back to laughingstock status? Understand I am not suggesting we trade them just for the sake of trading them. Obviously I expect good players back, players who are capable of either taking over now or taking over next season or at the latest the year after that (remember this was all based on Colorado's asking price for Ubaldo Jimenez). This team will not be a laughing stock with all the players they have locked up, especially when supplemented in a year or two by the 6 to 7 prospects you'd get in return for those 4 players I mentioned. What the Brewers are currently on track for is that their farm system is so bad that they are going to have to rely on free agency for the next several years to remain competitive. That formula hasn't worked out very well for them lately and usually doesn't for small market teams.

Absolutely. If you are saying that a team like the current Brewers

can't win the World Series, I offer an example of a team that has some

similarities that has done so.

 

I'm not saying a team like the Brewers CAN'T win the World Series, I'm saying that it's not very likely to happen. By having to go back almost a quarter of century to find a team like them that did win the World Series, a team that had to win fewer series in the playoffs by the way, you are almost unintentionally making my point stronger.

If you can see the flawed logic in that, then you can see the flawed logic to this whole thread.

 

Again, missing the point. I'm not saying "hey we're not going to win the World Series so let's sell and try again next year". I'm saying "hey, this team isn't showing a whole lot that gives me confidence that they can even get to the playoffs, let alone the World Series, AND the window to remain competitive is closing very quickly. We are losing our team, and possibly league, MVP next season and replacing him with an unproven Mat Gamel (not to mention all the bullpen free agents and the black holes at shortstop and third base to worry about), and we may lose three of our four best starters the year after that with not a whole lot in the system to replace them with.

 

If the Brewers don't make the playoffs this season then I don't know how

anyone could conclude that Melvin's tenure as GM hasn't been a horrible

let down.

 

This I couldn't agree with more. When Melvin took over, the team was bad but the farm system was one of the best in baseball. If the above happens, he'd leave with one playoff appearance and the worst system by far in baseball. That's not really a good trade-off. If you are going to exit with the worst system, I'd prefer more than one little playoff series that they'd needed a ton of help from the Mets to even get to.

 

This entire thing reminds me of the housing crisis (haha great

comparison huh?) When it was booming everything looked peachy and

everyone was happy. But there were people out there saying, "hey this

is going to come crashing down awfully quickly and maybe we should

prepare for that". Then it does crash and everyone says "we should have

done something sooner". That's all I'm saying. In my lowly little

opinion, this franchise is going to come crashing down pretty soon. I

really hope I'm wrong, but maybe we should start preparing for it.

Maybe that means playing things out now and selling after the season or

maybe it means doing nothing, but a franchise like Milwaukee simply

cannot continue down it's current path. We are quickly running out of

players to trade and don't have enough money to fill all our holes with

free agents.

[monty57]

Why do they have the best odds now than they've ever had as a franchise?

 

If that was in response to my post, I said: " the Brewers have better odds of winning the World Series this year than they have had in most of their existence." They had better odds of winning the World Series in 1982, when they were in the series, and in 2008 when they were in the playoffs, but there haven't been a lot of situations in the Brewers existence where they've had better odds at making the playoffs / winning it all than they have right now.

 

The roster as it's constructed today may not even be good enough to win the division.

 

True, but then again, it may. That said, I would be surprised if no more moves are made prior to trading deadline. It shouldn't take much to pry someone like Jamey Carroll from the cash-starved Dodgers. If we pay the salary, we probably get him for little-to-nothing in terms of prospects. I'd certainly rather do that than trade away Fielder because we may not be able to beat the Yankees in the World Series.

[paul253]

I'd certainly rather do that than trade away Fielder because we may not be able to beat the Yankees in the World Series.

Or the Pirates to win the division.