Are the Brewers one Year from Rebuilding?

[RightFieldCoder]

My prediction is that the Braun suspension will kill us in more than one way. Besides not having an MVP for nearly 1/3 of the season, Melvin will use that excuse to not give up on the year. "We're only eight games out, and that. But that was without an MVP player in Braun. Now that we have Braun we can make a push to get back into first. There's no reason to trade away players at this point, and that." Instead of acquiring young talent, we'll trade away more prospects for "proven veterans" like Hairston with one or two years left to shore up the MLB staff. We'll let Greinke walk for nothing. We might sign Marcum, but I expect him to either walk or get hurt and hang another albatross contract on us. I am very scared for what 2013+ will bring to Brewer fans.

[monty57]

My prediction is that the Braun suspension will kill us in more than one way. Besides not having an MVP for nearly 1/3 of the season, Melvin will use that excuse to not give up on the year. "We're only eight games out, and that. But that was without an MVP player in Braun. Now that we have Braun we can make a push to get back into first. There's no reason to trade away players at this point, and that." Instead of acquiring young talent, we'll trade away more prospects for "proven veterans" like Hairston with one or two years left to shore up the MLB staff. We'll let Greinke walk for nothing. We might sign Marcum, but I expect him to either walk or get hurt and hang another albatross contract on us. I am very scared for what 2013+ will bring to Brewer fans.

 

I'm rying to keep this part of my brain locked away, and remain optimistic, but every "win now" move makes it more & more difficult. If we win back-to-back division titles, and maybe even make a World Series, then going through a rebuilding period won't be as hard to stomach, but it would be terrible to miss the playoffs and miss the opportunity to trade away some very marketable trading chips to rebuild on the fly this year.

 

People like to speak of "the weak NL Central." The Cardinals and Reds should be very good this year. The Cubs won't be good, but they have some talent and aren't "gimmie" games. The Astros stink, but no other division has a 6th team and they'll be gone soon anyway. The Brewers have a talented team this year, but it's very possible that through July (much of the time playing without Braun), the Brewers could be third in the division. If that's the case, I would rather "sell" and get some good young talent than play for the hope & prayer that we turn it around in the second half.

 

As Robin19 alluded, Melvin has not been a seller in the recent past, even when it looked like he should sell. If we're down in the standings I'll be hoping for a big selloff this year, and instead we'll probably trade some of our prospects for a band-aid which won't be enough to push us to the playoffs.

 

I guess I'd look at this year as: Division Title/Playoffs > selling at deadline > missing the playoffs and letting some or all of Wolf, Greinke, Marcum and K-Rod walk

 

If the market is good enough this year, and our trading chips could bring back enough return, I'd probably even trade in a "decent shot" at a playoff appearance to avoid seeing that much talent walk away for nothing, and having us in major rebuild mode (with little payroll flexibility) for the next few seasons.

[JohnBriggs12]

To flip the concept of this thread, the Brewers are one Greinke extension away from being perennial contenders.

I totally agree. You need 2 ace-types and a very strong Top 3 starters. Call it the Atlanta Braves model, 1991-2004: 3 Rotation studs & your cornerstone position players, with the other spots gradually evolving as the years go by. With Gallardo & Greinke, there are your 2 ace-types. Braun & Weeks & Ramirez (for better or for worse, in the case of the latter) are your proven All-Star position players.

The Atlanta Braves model that you point to had 3 HOF'ers. There's a reason it hasn't been duplicated since though many have tried. Having one HOF pitcher on your staff is unusual. Having 3 at one time happens once in every 2 generations or so. Putting Greinke in the class of any of those 3 is a huge stretch. Same goes for Gallardo. Much more likely is that one of your top guys will break down or become ineffective within a few years and you'll be saddled with a contract that can't be moved. The Braves have one of the most lucrative TV deals in baseball. The Brewers can't think in the same terms those Braves teams did.

 

Greinke and Marcum are both replaceable. They were both acquired in deals using prospects. They show that is a method that can be used again.

[narwhalattack]

My prediction is that the Braun suspension will kill us in more than one way. Besides not having an MVP for nearly 1/3 of the season, Melvin will use that excuse to not give up on the year. "We're only eight games out, and that. But that was without an MVP player in Braun. Now that we have Braun we can make a push to get back into first. There's no reason to trade away players at this point, and that." Instead of acquiring young talent, we'll trade away more prospects for "proven veterans" like Hairston with one or two years left to shore up the MLB staff. We'll let Greinke walk for nothing. We might sign Marcum, but I expect him to either walk or get hurt and hang another albatross contract on us. I am very scared for what 2013+ will bring to Brewer fans.

 

I'm rying to keep this part of my brain locked away, and remain optimistic, but every "win now" move makes it more & more difficult. If we win back-to-back division titles, and maybe even make a World Series, then going through a rebuilding period won't be as hard to stomach, but it would be terrible to miss the playoffs and miss the opportunity to trade away some very marketable trading chips to rebuild on the fly this year.

 

People like to speak of "the weak NL Central." The Cardinals and Reds should be very good this year. The Cubs won't be good, but they have some talent and aren't "gimmie" games. The Astros stink, but no other division has a 6th team and they'll be gone soon anyway. The Brewers have a talented team this year, but it's very possible that through July (much of the time playing without Braun), the Brewers could be third in the division. If that's the case, I would rather "sell" and get some good young talent than play for the hope & prayer that we turn it around in the second half.

 

As Robin19 alluded, Melvin has not been a seller in the recent past, even when it looked like he should sell. If we're down in the standings I'll be hoping for a big selloff this year, and instead we'll probably trade some of our prospects for a band-aid which won't be enough to push us to the playoffs.

 

I guess I'd look at this year as: Division Title/Playoffs > selling at deadline > missing the playoffs and letting some or all of Wolf, Greinke, Marcum and K-Rod walk

 

If the market is good enough this year, and our trading chips could bring back enough return, I'd probably even trade in a "decent shot" at a playoff appearance to avoid seeing that much talent walk away for nothing, and having us in major rebuild mode (with little payroll flexibility) for the next few seasons.

That's what I'm afraid of. Melvin's gonna be so obsessed with winning that he's gonna trade for some band-aid "proven veterans". He's always had an obsession with proven veterans with decent track record. He even stuck with Suppan for 3 years.

[craigharmann]

The Cardinals won't be very good. Remember, they lost Poo and Wainwright is coming off of a serious injury. Last year, a lot was done with smoke, mirrors and Mark McGwire as the hitting instructor. TLR is no longer the manager, so maybe he won't want McGwire to use his usual techniques.

[TheCrew07]

I know he hasn't suffered a major injury yet but all pitchers do at some point.

 

What? Every pitcher suffers a major injury at some point? That's news to me.

There's been plenty of studies done on this subject and yes, the vast majority of major league pitchers will have a serious injury at some point. There is nothing ergonomic about throwing a baseball, even with perfect (and I use that term loosely for a variety of reasons) mechanics there is still vast potential for wear and tear/repetitive use injury to ligaments in the shoulder and elbow. Then throw in freak injuries like blowing out your ACL as in Yo's case, tearing a shoulder muscle as in Sheets' case, etc... because of the nature of the position pitchers carry significant injury risk.

 

Here's a link to an article I stumbled across doing research for a different post, it's pretty short, more of post, but you'll get the gist. I'm quoting the most informative part of the article below.

 

During that time 3072 players were placed on the disabled list. For the

last 3 years of the study there was an overall 37% increase in

injuries. For pitchers specifically there was a 58% increase over those

final 3 yrs. Not surprisingly the overall incidence rate among

pitchers was 34% higher than for fielders. Among all players injuries to

the upper extremity accounted for 51% while lower extremity injuries

accounted for 30%, injuries to the spine and core accounted for 11% and

the rest was made up of miscellaneous injuries and illnesses. Pitchers

experienced more upper extremity injuries, while fielders experienced

more lower extremity injuries.

This is another reason why I personally like young impact pitching as opposed to veteran pitching, I'd much rather pay a young pitcher league minimum or a vastly reduced rate to be on the DL than someone making the market rate. In that sense Yo's knee bothered me much less than the litany of Sheets injuries. I know people will make the argument that a pitcher still earned his contract pitching X number of quality innings as was frequently brought up in regards to Sheets, but no player signs for that money expecting to miss significant time for injury.

 

Finally, younger players don't get hurt nearly often on average, therefore not only are we maximizing contract value, we're maximizing the number of games they will play in per season as well. The downside of course is the learning curve and how long it takes a young player to peak, so you aren't sure what you're going to get production wise from season to season.

 

If you google pitching injuries or pitching injury frequency there is a wealth of information online. Part of the problem, especially on the pitching side, is that MLB teams have no control over how much a young pitcher was abused through little league, babe ruth, high school, and possibly college before being drafted. Scouting departments have to weigh the risk of injury against the talent in just about every situation. In some cases people are claiming that specialization is only making the issue worse because kids are throwing all year round, there's a ton of good reading out there on the subject if people are so inclined.

[MNBrew]

The Atlanta Braves model that you point to had 3 HOF'ers. There's a reason it hasn't been duplicated since though many have tried. Having one HOF pitcher on your staff is unusual. Having 3 at one time happens once in every 2 generations or so. Putting Greinke in the class of any of those 3 is a huge stretch. Same goes for Gallardo. Much more likely is that one of your top guys will break down or become ineffective within a few years and you'll be saddled with a contract that can't be moved. The Braves have one of the most lucrative TV deals in baseball. The Brewers can't think in the same terms those Braves teams did.

 

Greinke and Marcum are both replaceable. They were both acquired in deals using prospects. They show that is a method that can be used again.

There was no guarantee in the first half of the '90s that Atlanta's Top 3 were 3 going to become HOF'ers. But all 3 were clearly ace-caliber starters and nearly annually All-Stars (Glavine & Maddux the most, Smoltz about half the time in that time period). How they were acquired didn't matter with respect to how good they were.

 

Smoltz was acquired by trade (w/ Det. for Doyle Alexander), Maddux was a FA signing, and Glavine was drafted by Atlanta. Do you discredit Philly's rotation, for instance, because only Cole Hamels is "homegrown"?

 

I strongly disagree that Greinke is "replaceable." By whom? And just what bevy of prospects do we have available to surrender for someone we'd hope to land who's just as good or better? And heck, is he any less of a pitcher because we gave up 4 of our best prospects to get him? Is Roger Clemens any less of a pitcher because he was only traded for 3 players, and 2 of them were Graeme Lloyd & Homer Bush (David Wells being the 3rd guy)?

 

Could Greinke improve from his 2011 performance? Yes, though mainly only on the road (and of course in the playoffs if we get there). Now the guy's pitched a full year in the NL, and he likely won't break a rib at the outset of spring training again, so he'll be available for all 6 months of the season and with a full & normal spring training under his belt. Frankly, I'd expect him to be better in 2012. If, by chance, he proves he's not getting better or is regressing, then I may be more open than I am now to changing my about moving him or locking him into an extension. But most of the time, you knew last year that when Greinke was on the mound, it had the potential to be something outstanding . . . and it most often still amounted to a Brewers win. And there are clear & simple factors that could well lead to that being the case all over again in 2012 if not even more so.

 

Back to the point, the Atlanta model worked so well for them (and to varying degrees for those who've come close to replicating it) because of the Top 3 and mostly making the right moves around their cornerstone position players. Keep in mind that for every good Steve Avery, Kevin Millwood, & Denny Neagle year the Braves had out of their #4 & #5 starters, they still had years or parts of years with a Pete Smith, Terrell Wade, a lousy Avery or Kevin Millwood, Mike Bielecki, and up-and-down Kent Mercker, etc., rounding out their rotation. But the big guys at the top carried them. . . . .What the Brewers have proven is that without a Sheets/Sabathia, Gallardo, Greinke, etc., let alone multiple ace-type pitchers, they really have to hit on all cylinders to even have an outside shot at best at making the playoffs.

 

To just dismiss Greinke & Marcum as replaceable (even Wolf, for that matter) and say "they traded for those guys before and could get guys just like 'em again" seems a ridiculous oversimplification.

[paul253]

There's been plenty of studies done on this subject and yes, the vast

majority of major league pitchers will have a serious injury at some

point.

I guess I was focusing more on the "major" part. Simply going on the DL doesn't equate to a major injury. When I think of "major injury", I think of something that causes someone to miss at least half of a season.

[TheCrew07]

Here's a little bit more on the original study the blog I referenced was referring to.

 

http://www.webmd.com/fitn...-prone-baseball-injuries

 

I found the quote pretty interesting, I probably should have linked to this first since it fleshed out the data better but I just felt weird linking to webmd for some reason.

 

Among other findings:

• 74.4% of all Major League players’ injuries occurred before the All-Star break.
• 79% of all shoulder and elbow injuries happened to pitchers before the All-Star game.
• 74.8% of all hamstring, quadriceps, groin, and core injuries to fielders occurred before the mid-season hiatus.
• 3,072 players were placed on the disabled list from the 2002
  season through 2008, an average of 438.9 per year. The high during the
  period was 516 in 2008, and the low was 388 in 2005.

Here's old story from last year talking about young pitchers that people might find interesting.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.c...2011/02/110201083343.htm

 

 

During the 10-year span, five percent of the pitchers suffered a

serious injury resulting in surgery or retirement. Two of the boys in

the study had surgery before their 13th birthday. Only 2.2 percent were

still pitching by the 10th year of the study.

"It is a tough balancing act for adults to give their young athletes

as much opportunity as possible to develop skills and strength without

exposing them to increased risk of overuse injury. Based on this study,

we recommend that pitchers in high school and younger pitch no more than

100 innings in competition in any calendar year. Some pitchers need to

be limited even more, as no pitcher should continue to pitch when

fatigued," said Fleisig.

This struck home for me, I didn't have surgery, but I had thrown out my arm by the time I was a sophomore in high school and was just used in relief if at all moving forward.

 

Generally speaking it's not a matter of "if" a pitcher will get injured, it's more a matter of "when". The guys who reach MLB have sometimes run the gauntlet injury free, but many of those guys have had surgery as well, and the list of prospect pitchers who flamed out due to injury is tremendous. Look at our young pitchers in MLB and the upper minors, these are just off the top of my head...

 

Gallardo - ACL

Axford - TJ

Rogers - 2 shoulder injuries

Rivas - TJ

Peralta - TJ

Parra - Shoulder and TJ

Scarpetta - Finger

Braddock - TJ and Ulnar Nerve Transposition

 

The longer you pitch, the more likely you'll need some kind of surgery. Peavy and Schmidt should be a good study in risk for those who are proponents of signing older dominant pitchers. After Sabathia this forum mostly focused on trading for Peavy but who would want him now? The difficult part is that you'll never know... a very few gifted players will be mostly healthy their entire careers, most aren't that lucky. If you're the Brewers, can you ever afford to eat a year's worth of an 8 digit salary for no production? What about an essentially career ending injury where the pitcher comes back but is completely ineffective relative to his salary? I would simply answer no, maybe others are willing to accept that risk. Off the top of my head these are the top recent pitchers in the game so that have had TJ surgery, some recovered well, some not so much...

 

Bedard

Carpenter

Gagne

Hudson

Josh Johnson

Liriano

Smoltz

Strasburg

Volquez

Wainwright

Wood

 

of course our own guys in Marcum and Cappy (twice) have had the surgery.

 

There's an interesting new shoulder surgery for SLAP tears that isn't getting much run in the press, it could do for the shoulder what TJ surgery has done for the elbow extending careers and effectiveness, it's called biceps tenodesis. However instead of a tendon repair, it's a tendon removal, and last I had read (after Shilling had it done when he retired) there was still much debate about it. A quick google search brought up similar articles from 2010 but nothing recent, as far as I know no pitcher has attempted a comeback after the surgery. At any rate, shoulder injuries scare me much more than does TJ surgery. A quick list of recent shoulder injuries off the top of my head...

 

Peavy

Bedard

Webb

Chris Young

Santana

Mulder

Prior

Carpenter (first surgery was a shoulder, I think 2 shoulder surgeries actually)

Schmidt

Glavin (ended his career which was basically over anyway)

 

I talk quite a bit about the injury nexus, he's the original article from back when I first found Brewerfan and got into sabermetrics, tons and tons of good information in this article.

 

http://www.baseballprospe...ticle.php?articleid=1658

 

Depending on which "study" you read, the curves will vary some post body maturation, some more linear than others, but the point to remember is that every year a player ages past 24-25 the risk of injury goes up and eventually becomes exponential (a steep curve). The original study places the odds of a catastrophic injury over 10% for every year a pitcher pitches, simple math will reveal that the odds are pretty long to make it through a pitching career unscathed.

 

Mostly when I made the original statement I was thinking about all of the pitchers pitching professionally including the minor leagues. I had to go back and look for this article from THT, I didn't realize it was back from 2007. It was an analysis of HS pitchers taken early in the draft, here's the most relevant part.

 

In other words, about half of the pitchers make it to Triple-A baseball

or beyond within six years of their draft selection. And although 38% of

the top 10 high school pitchers in each of these drafts made it to the

major leagues, only eight of the 50 pitchers (16%) in this sample tossed

a total of 100 innings or more at the major league level within six

years of being drafted

This wasn't an analysis directed at injury vs performance, just how many young HS pitchers even make it to MLB as effective starting pitchers, the majority of these failures are actually injury related but for the life of me I can't find that other more in depth analysis young pitching injuries anymore. Such a low percentage of pitchers make it, then so many of those will suffer a serious injury, it's kind of depressing when I allow myself to think about it.

 

Yes I know I'm total pitching nerd, I guess mostly because of my own arm problems along the way and the very real need for the Brewers to develop their own impact pitching I have devoted a ton of personal time to reading up on pitching injuries, mechanics, training methods, and so on. On that note one organization to keep an eye on is the Rangers, they've made quite a bit of noise because of Ryan's statements about disregarding pitch counts but they are doing some very interesting things to build arm strength and prevent arm injuries including extreme long toss (up to 300 feet), specialized physical conditioning, and a return to having pitchers throw batting practice on off days. The Rangers have also done quite a bit of research on the recovery rates of pitchers from different surgical procedures. I don't remember where I read it but 86% of their TJ pitchers reached the same level of effectiveness prior to the injury while only about 50% of the shoulder surgeries reached that same level.

[DHonks]

TheCrew07, I'm curious about this surgery you mention for shoulders. I'm pretty sure the labrum is the cartilage in the shoulder, not a tendon. Why would removing a tendon fix a cartilage tear?

[adambr2]

I agree with Greinke being re-signed pretty much the difference between rebuilding or contending in the near-future years.

 

Although, I wish we had a little better corps of "young" homegrown position players, that used to be our M.O. I'm forced to desperately root against Brett Lawrie in the hopes of convincing me that the Lawrie for Marcum trade wasn't as awful as I think it was.

[Warning Track Power]

While that trade will undoubtedly look terrible, the Brewers likely don't make the playoffs in 2011 without Shaun Marcum. I guess it really is more about whether or not Lawrie was worth the shot we took to make the playoffs in 2011 and the possibility of playoffs in 2012.

[reillymcshane]

While that trade will undoubtedly look terrible, the Brewers likely don't make the playoffs in 2011 without Shaun Marcum. I guess it really is more about whether or not Lawrie was worth the shot we took to make the playoffs in 2011 and the possibility of playoffs in 2012.

This is pretty much it. We took a shot - a very good shot - at winning things. I hate to have lost Lawrie, but it happened. As you said, we probably don't make the playoffs. Also, would Greinke have approved the trade to Milwaukee had we not made the Marcum deal? Don't know, but it probably looked good to Greinke knowing the team was poised to do well.

[monty57]

I agree that we wouldn't have made the playoffs without Marcum, but I look back on the trade now and think "could we trade Marcum for Bryce Harper?" Since Melvin would get laughed out of the room for even contemplating that thought combined with the fact that other GM's were quoted as saying things like "I wish I'd have known Lawrie was on the market," makes me think we could probably have gotten a better return for one of the best prospects in the game.

 

Just a hypothetical, but Oakland traded Gio Gonzalez and Trevor Cahill this offseason. It's entirely possible that Beane would have liked Lawrie enough last offseason to part with Gonzalez a year earlier, and we would have received three year's service time and a pitcher who doesn't have a serious history of arm troubles. My guess is that we would have made the playoffs last year if we had someone like Gonzalez in the rotation instead of Marcum. Again, this is just a made up scenario, but it seems to me that there may have been some better offers if Melvin had done all his due diligence.

 

Or, taking a different tack, what could we have received in trade for Rickie Weeks? Lawrie certainly appered MLB ready last year when Toronto brought him up. We could have traded Weeks for a major load of talent, plugged Lawrie into second base for the next six years, saved a lot of money and probably still made the playoffs last season... but that would have required us to actually put some faith into a rookie.

 

I'd guess that the annals of history will show the Brewers to be big-time losers in the Lawrie-Marcum trade. He looks like he could be a Braun-type talent, which we gave up for two years of a good-but-not-great pitcher who appears to have somewhat of a bum shoulder.

[TURBO]

Monty, your post just bummed me out...

[TooLiveBrew]

Yeah, the infamous Zambrano-for-Kazmir trade comes to mind when I think about Lawrie-Marcum. Now, of course Marcum is better than Zambrano was, but I think Lawrie is going to wind up being better than Kazmir was, too.

[endaround]

1) There was no evidence that Lawrie would have been ready in 2011. Yes he was young for AA but his numbers weren't in the Braun level or Fielder level (with regards to power).

 

2) He can't play 2B

 

3)If KC would have moved sooner he likely would have gone for Greinke.

[TooLiveBrew]

1) There was no evidence that Lawrie would have been ready in 2011.

 

Aside from scouting, which is what should always be used first with young players, not stats.

[endaround]

I'm not saying he would haven't been a major league player. I'm saying there was no reason to believe he was going to be ready in spring of 2011. And scouting also highly doubted he could stick in the infield. My guess is he was moved because the Brewer feared they could be on the verge of another Gamel as Lawrie's glove eroded the value his bat brought.

[3and2Fastball]

We don't know 100% for sure that the Brewers couldn't have made the playoffs without Marcum because we don't know what other pitchers were possibly available via trade. And I suppose we could look at who the Brewers could have signed via free agency. Plus of course Marcum imploded when we needed him most in the playoffs! We definitely would have benefited from Lawrie at 3B in the 2nd half of 2011 when Casey was a black hole at 3B

 

Keeping Lawrie would have prevented us from overpaying for Aramis Ramirez too

 

I think it was a horrible trade and I'm concerned that the Brewers front office didn't seem to realize that Lawrie could play 3B or (even going into the 2011 season) thought so highly of McGehee that they felt Brett Lawrie didn't have a position.

 

If Marcum pitches like an All-Star in 2012, including in the playoffs I still will think 6 years of Brett Lawrie was a foolish price to pay for 2 years of Marcum

[adambr2]

As I mentioned I do think it was a terrible trade looking at it straight up, but I do agree that you have to look at the bigger picture and ripple effect.

 

Independent of the Marcum/Lawrie trade, I think there was a small chance of landing Greinke while still having Lawrie. #1, had we still had Lawrie, would the Royals have accepted the same trade? I have to think that telling them, "we want Greinke, but we won't give you the best player in our mediocre farm system" would have been an impossible sell. They would have demanded Lawrie be the centerpiece of the package.

 

Also, even if they didn't, would Greinke have waved his NTC, which he wouldn't do to go to Washington, to come here? With no other moves having been made, I doubt he had any real reason to think that a 70-some win team from 2010 was making a big push with him alone.

 

So in the end, we almost did essentially "buy" a division title on the back of Brett Lawrie alone as he is the key cog of which I don't think either Greinke or Marcum is here without. We sacrificed an entire 6 cost controlled years for him though, and we'll never know if patience instead would have been rewarded with a bigger prize.

 

But I agree if you're going to shop Lawrie, do it aggressively and with due diligence. Get a younger pitcher with staying power that you can build a rotation around, not a soft-tosser with a #2 starter ceiling with a history of arm trouble. Same mistake IMO that he made with Sabathia, too much focus on the short term when alternative solutions that can help you not only for the present, but the future (like Greinke would have been in 2008), could have been had for similar packages.

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm saying there was no reason to believe he was going to be ready in spring of 2011.

What I specifically responded to was, "There was no evidence that Lawrie would have been ready in 2011", not "spring '11". Not admonishing you refining your point, just clarifying.

[brettac1]

He most likely still won't stick in the IF for long. Aside from a very small MLB sample saying he is a good defensive 3B, I don't think anyone who watched him play the position would say he is good there or will stick. He seems destined for LF.

[endaround]

I'm saying there was no reason to believe he was going to be ready in spring of 2011.

What I specifically responded to was, "There was no evidence that Lawrie would have been ready in 2011", not "spring '11". Not admonishing you refining your point, just clarifying.

I was replying to the idea of trading Weeks and having Lawrie start at 2B for the Brewers in 2011. That just doesn't work.

[monty57]

I'm saying there was no reason to believe he was going to be ready in spring of 2011.

What I specifically responded to was, "There was no evidence that Lawrie would have been ready in 2011", not "spring '11". Not admonishing you refining your point, just clarifying.

I was replying to the idea of trading Weeks and having Lawrie start at 2B for the Brewers in 2011. That just doesn't work.

 

My mistake, I thought I remembered Lawrie playing 2B in our minor league system prior to his being traded. If not, then we could've traded McGehee prior to last season as we surely had enough 3B talent in the minors. I think that would've turned out okay :-)

 

Either way, the reported comments from the GM meetings where it sounded like most MLB GMs were stunned that Lawrie was traded makes me think that Melvin didn't explore all of his options, and quite possibly could have gotten a better return for Lawrie if he indeed felt that Lawrie needed to be traded. I like Marcum, but would much rather have received someone younger, with better "stuff," more team control and less injury history.

 

Part of me thinks Melvin might be smart for taking advantage of the current over-valuation of prospects and is using it to trade so-so prospects for a championship team. He may have some grand plan for budget-maintenance and there may not be any budget crunch on the horizon. Another part worries that maybe Melvin is trying to buy a championship before he retires and isn't always looking at the longer-term future as much as he used to.

 

To the title "Are the Brewers one year from rebuilding," I'd suggest that we could be a good team for a long time, but our recent trends (trading prospects for vets, but never vets for prospects; signing high-priced FAs to block prospects) lead me to believe that we may have to go into fire-sale mode soon. Where we sit right now, if we don't want to rebuild, we pretty much either need to extend Greinke, exercise Wolf's option, or hit the FA market for SP after this season. Our potential SP exodus may say we are a year away from rebuilding. Our contract status seems to point to 2014 or 2015 as the years where we may be forced to trade some of our high-priced vets (Weeks, Yo, Braun) for salary relief.

 

Since we traded Lawrie for two years of Marcum, we don't have any superstars in the system. Jungman is probably as close as we come, as he has "top of the rotation potential," but he's far from a sure-fire ace. Players like Green and Schafer are good complementary players, but we're doing everything we can to block them from ever being anything but bench players or injury-fill-ins. Without these guys playing for league-minimum, we will not be able to sustain a MLB-roster and will eventually be forced into a fire sale, possibly timed for around the year after Melvin retires. We could have easily traded McGehee prior to last season, but we didn't want to take the risk of playing a rookie (Gamel or Lawrie). We could easily trade off Morgan this year, but we don't want to take the risk of playing a rookie (Schafer). We didn't have to sign Aoki, but we didn't want to take the risk of playing a rookie for 50 games (Gindl/Schafer). We didn't have to sign Ramirez to an untradeable contract, but we didn't want to take the risk of playing a rookie (Green). We didn't have to have a $100MM+ payroll this year, but we don't want to take the risk of playing rookies. Gamel's the one "exception," but how much of his starting is faith in the rookie, and how much is that we driven his trade value to zero, he's out of options and we are well over payroll budget? Nothing I've read makes it sound like the team has an overabundance of faith in him.

 

How long is this sustainable? How long can we trade away our prospects for high-price vets or sign high-priced FAs to block our prospects because we don't want to risk giving a rookie a lot of playing time? Eventually these contracts add up, and we aren't in a big enough market to have high-priced players at every position.

 

Things aren't dire, they're fixable. We could do a lot of things to ease the budget concerns. We will just need to change course a little bit and show some willingness to trade some vets for prospects when we have guys in-house to take over, and we have to once again be willing to give important roles to young players. If we show this willingness, I think we could stay good for a long time. It just doesn't seem to be the direction we've been heading for the past few seasons, and without some changes, I think we're going to run into a budget crunch in the not-too-distant future.