Wasting Money

[Fear The Chorizo]

The Brewers knew they had a limited window to contend that likely wouldn't carry far beyond Prince Fielder leaving via free agency. Melvin and company pulled out all the stops to build a major league team with the best chance of winning a world series during Fielder's last year, and they came up 6 wins short. Over the past few years those moves included trading alot of quality talent from their minor leagues that wasn't going to be ready to contribute at the major league level during that timeframe (Lawrie, Odirozzi in particular).

 

The "wasted money" results from this season being the start of the downturn - I think the Brewers have done a good job over the last two drafts to upgrade a gutted farm system, but they still have work to do. There isn't enough quality, especially in the higher levels of the minor leagues, for the Brewers to be in a position where they can call up players and expect them to be solid major league contributors. That leaves them with a glut of veteran players who may not be drastically overpriced on a contending team, but they don't belong together on a floundering team with longterm budget issues - their value to the Brewers should be as trade pieces before this year's deadline.

 

I don't think the Brewers are headed back to being consistently horrible, but I'd rather sacrifice the rest of this season and go full rebuild/retool than watch the team struggle to stick around .500 for several years. They need their farm system to start churning out quality players again. Trading the glut of veterans for whatever prospects they can get would give the Brewers much more flexibility to build their 2013 team via both free agency and internally.

[FVBrewerFan]

Melvin and company pulled out all the stops to build a major league team with the best chance of winning a world series during Fielder's last year, and they came up 6 wins short.

 

 

They didn't pull out all the stops, just most of them. If they REALLY pulled out all the stops and signed Sabathia, and still did the Greinke deal THAT would have been pulling out all the stops. And they very likely would have won it all last year.

 

It also wouldn't have crushed them long term financially. Greinke certainly wouldn't be re-signed next year, but we would still have CC and Yo.

[jerichoholicninja]

Melvin and company pulled out all the stops to build a major league team with the best chance of winning a world series during Fielder's last year, and they came up 6 wins short.

 

 

They didn't pull out all the stops, just most of them. If they REALLY pulled out all the stops and signed Sabathia, and still did the Greinke deal THAT would have been pulling out all the stops. And they very likely would have won it all last year.

 

It also wouldn't have crushed them long term financially. Greinke certainly wouldn't be re-signed next year, but we would still have CC and Yo.

 

CC was NEVER going to happen. Pulling out all the stops last year would have meant breaking the bank or what was left of the farm system for a short stop.

[FVBrewerFan]

Melvin and company pulled out all the stops to build a major league team with the best chance of winning a world series during Fielder's last year, and they came up 6 wins short.

 

 

They didn't pull out all the stops, just most of them. If they REALLY pulled out all the stops and signed Sabathia, and still did the Greinke deal THAT would have been pulling out all the stops. And they very likely would have won it all last year.

 

It also wouldn't have crushed them long term financially. Greinke certainly wouldn't be re-signed next year, but we would still have CC and Yo.

 

CC was NEVER going to happen. Pulling out all the stops last year would have meant breaking the bank or what was left of the farm system for a short stop.

 

Why? It was never going to happen because the Brewers didn't make him a serious offer. If they would have offered him the Yankees deal, we'll never know if he would have stayed. He and his wife really seemed to like it here, so I have to believe they could have convinced him to stay with a contract similar to what the Yankees offered.

[RightFieldCoder]

Then the Yankees would have offered more. Whatever the Brewers offered, the Yankees would have also countered.

 

We are bemoaning Weeks having a bad year. What would have happened if CC at $35M was having a bad year or got injured?

[RockCoCougars]

Then the Yankees would have offered more. Whatever the Brewers offered, the Yankees would have also countered.

 

We are bemoaning Weeks having a bad year. What would have happened if CC at $35M was having a bad year or got injured?

 

I'm not sure that the Yankees would have even went to $35 million. Though it sounded insane at the time, that deal almost looks like a bargain now... though the new part after the opt-out could get really ugly down the road.

[logan82]

Then the Yankees would have offered more. Whatever the Brewers offered, the Yankees would have also countered.

 

We are bemoaning Weeks having a bad year. What would have happened if CC at $35M was having a bad year or got injured?

 

I'm not sure that the Yankees would have even went to $35 million. Though it sounded insane at the time, that deal almost looks like a bargain now... though the new part after the opt-out could get really ugly down the road.

We are past the opt-out already. He opted out and basically got an extension.

 

5 years/$122M (2012-16), plus 2017 vesting option

 

signed extension with NY Yankees 10/31/11

12-15:$23M annually, 16:$25M, 17:$25M vesting option ($5M buyout)

2017 salary guaranteed if Sabathia 1) does not end 2016 on the disabled list with a left shoulder injury, 2) does not spend more than 45 days in 2016 on the disabled list with a left shoulder injury or 3) does not make more than six relief appearances in 2016 because of a left shoulder injury

no-trade protection

perks: suite on road trips

 

7 years/$161M (2009-15)

 

signed by NY Yankees as a free agent 12/11/08

$9M signing bonus (paid in 3 installments: 12/31/08, 3/1/09, 7/31/09

09:$14M, 10-15:$23M annually

salaries to be paid semimonthly over all 12 months of year, rather than semimonthly during season

Sabathia may opt of of deal after 2011 season

no-trade protection

perks: suite on road trips

[RockCoCougars]

We are past the opt-out already. He opted out and basically got an extension.

 

That's what I meant to say. This part could start looking bad in a few years.....

 

5 years/$122M (2012-16), plus 2017 vesting option

 

signed extension with NY Yankees 10/31/11

12-15:$23M annually, 16:$25M, 17:$25M vesting option ($5M buyout)

2017 salary guaranteed if Sabathia 1) does not end 2016 on the disabled list with a left shoulder injury, 2) does not spend more than 45 days in 2016 on the disabled list with a left shoulder injury or 3) does not make more than six relief appearances in 2016 because of a left shoulder injury

no-trade protection

perks: suite on road trips

[FVBrewerFan]

Exactly. And that is a bargain. Doug would also have options this year if he would have signed CC. He could:

 

1) Ride out the contract with Sabathia, and trade Greinke by the deadline this year.

 

2) Trade Sabathia at the deadline, and try to re-sign Greinke.

 

3) Trade both of them at the deadline.

 

 

Any of these options would have been a huge improvement to the Major and/or Minor League roster.

[Raw Biz]

Exactly. And that is a bargain. Doug would also have options this year if he would have signed CC. He could:

 

1) Ride out the contract with Sabathia, and trade Greinke by the deadline this year.

 

2) Trade Sabathia at the deadline, and try to re-sign Greinke.

 

3) Trade both of them at the deadline.

 

 

Any of these options would have been a huge improvement to the Major and/or Minor League roster.

 

Why do you keep assuming Greinke would be on the team if they had resigned CC? I don't think they would have. The reason they got Greinke was because they lacked a true ace. With CC, they would have had that and wouldn't have needed to trade for Greinke. There's no reason to keep bringing up this hypothetical CC/Greinke combo because it most likely would have never happened.

[FVBrewerFan]

Exactly. And that is a bargain. Doug would also have options this year if he would have signed CC. He could:

 

1) Ride out the contract with Sabathia, and trade Greinke by the deadline this year.

 

2) Trade Sabathia at the deadline, and try to re-sign Greinke.

 

3) Trade both of them at the deadline.

 

 

Any of these options would have been a huge improvement to the Major and/or Minor League roster.

 

Why do you keep assuming Greinke would be on the team if they had resigned CC? I don't think they would have. The reason they got Greinke was because they lacked a true ace. With CC, they would have had that and wouldn't have needed to trade for Greinke. There's no reason to keep bringing up this hypothetical CC/Greinke combo because it most likely would have never happened.

 

 

Because that's my point, it could have and should have happened. You say if Sabathia was signed they wouldn't have gone after Greinke. I understand that. I'm just saying they SHOULD have. 30 years without a WS appearance, and another 30 without a title. At some point, you have to take maximum advantage of a window.

 

Many here claim they did go all out the past couple years. I don't think they did. Last year we legitimately could have had Sabathia/Greinke/Yo at the top of the rotation. Lights out closer. Braun and Fielder. And plenty of supporting pieces like Hart, Lucroy, Morgan, etc.

 

It's not my money, so I can't blame Mark A. for not going all out. I just wish everyone would stop saying the Brewers went "all in" when they really didn't.

[Baldkin]

Where exactly were you getting the 25 million to pay CC on last years team?

You're stuck with No Weeks. No Hart. No Hawkins. No Saito and no Wolf.

That's 25 million.

 

Don't believe me?

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Ah4PW47PiAi-dHRZc3VGOFNGTDZMMUtkYmNVRktyMlE&output=html

 

Somehow you seem to think the Brewers can build a competitive team paying 60% of their salaries to 2 players. Or do you just assume that Mark A will spend his own money and balloon the payroll to 130 million?

[Raw Biz]

Exactly. And that is a bargain. Doug would also have options this year if he would have signed CC. He could:

 

1) Ride out the contract with Sabathia, and trade Greinke by the deadline this year.

 

2) Trade Sabathia at the deadline, and try to re-sign Greinke.

 

3) Trade both of them at the deadline.

 

 

Any of these options would have been a huge improvement to the Major and/or Minor League roster.

 

Why do you keep assuming Greinke would be on the team if they had resigned CC? I don't think they would have. The reason they got Greinke was because they lacked a true ace. With CC, they would have had that and wouldn't have needed to trade for Greinke. There's no reason to keep bringing up this hypothetical CC/Greinke combo because it most likely would have never happened.

 

 

Because that's my point, it could have and should have happened. You say if Sabathia was signed they wouldn't have gone after Greinke. I understand that. I'm just saying they SHOULD have. 30 years without a WS appearance, and another 30 without a title. At some point, you have to take maximum advantage of a window.

 

Many here claim they did go all out the past couple years. I don't think they did. Last year we legitimately could have had Sabathia/Greinke/Yo at the top of the rotation. Lights out closer. Braun and Fielder. And plenty of supporting pieces like Hart, Lucroy, Morgan, etc.

 

It's not my money, so I can't blame Mark A. for not going all out. I just wish everyone would stop saying the Brewers went "all in" when they really didn't.

 

OK well then I'm going to say they SHOULD have drafted Ian Kennedy in 06 instead of Jeffress. We could have legitimately had CC/Yo/Kennedy at the top of the rotation then last year, plus Marcum and Escobar instead of Yuni. Then they SHOULD have traded for Jose Bautista since he turned out to be awesome. Yeah that might be a little condescending but I'm trying to make a point. A lot of this stuff happened after the fact. Obviously the Brewers didn't do everything possible to go completely "all in" but they came pretty damn close.

 

And I still don't get your point about having CC and Greinke on the same team. They most likely didn't know in the fall/winter 08 that they would be trading for Greinke a few years later. And like I said, after resigning CC, they probably wouldn't have gone after Greinke. There really is no point in speculating what would have happened. At this point it seems like you're just arguing semantics about what "all in" really means.

[monty57]

At some point, you have to take maximum advantage of a window.

 

Well, they almost destroyed their financial flexibility and left their farm in shambles, so I guess they could've went all the way and completely destroyed their financial flexibility and left their farm completely devoid of talent. That would make being a Brewer fan really fun for the next decade.

 

If "the best team on paper" always won the World Series, then the Yankees would've won about 15 straight World Series. They don't, so to me "going all in" at the expense of the future isn't a good strategy. Remember that this year is supposed to be an "all in" year for the Brewers as well, but things often go against some teams and for others. The odds of winning in a "window" are small, and then you're terrible and have no chance of winning. A team with budgetary constraints that is sitting on the wrong end of the "uneven financial playing field" can't try to beat the guys with seemingly unlimited resources at their own game. If "going all in" means signing potentially-franchise-crippling-contracts and trading all your prospects, then I never want to see the Brewers "go all in."

 

We've fallen in love with our own guys to the extent that we believe that no one else could fill their shoes unless they're Cy Young winners or multiple-time All Stars. That's not the case. If you build the system right, there should always be players waiting to contribute. Sure that means occasionally trading good players while they're still good to bring in young talent at positions of need. That's how you remain continually good as opposed to being terrible for years at a time, then having a "short window" before once again being terrible for a long time.

 

Prince Fielder is a .900 OPS 1B. He is a good player. He is not some once-in-a-lifetime player around whom the fate of the entire Brewer nation revolved. This thought of a "window while we had Prince" was man-made. Melvin tried trading Prince, but his expectations were way too high. No playoff team (the ones who would trade for one year of a player) can afford to give up two young pitchers from their MLB rotation. When no GM would match these unrealistic expectations, Melvin decided to sacrifice the future for a shot at the World Series. Because he lost track of the long-term in favor of the short-term for a while, we're now in a position where we could be pretty bad going forward and I still hear cries of "we're still in it this year, we should trade more prospects for a shot at the playoffs."

 

If we had traded Prince, maybe we wouldn't have had our "magical 2011," which ended in our raising a "Division Champions" banner in front of the World Series champs this season. What would've happened had Melvin decided to trade Prince instead of "going for it" is purely speculation. I would guess that we would have recieved a young MLB pitcher and a good prospect for him, and we probably wouldn't have made the Marucm and Greinke trades. We'd have Lawrie at 3B, so the Ramirez deal wouldn't have been made. We'd have Escobar at SS and the pitcher we received in the Prince trade for the foreseeable future, with Odorizzi nearly ready to step in along with the rest of our talented young pitching. In other words, maybe last year wouldn't have been a playoff year (or maybe it would have, we don't know), but the future would be a lot brighter, and a lot of the "wasted money" (to the topic of the thread) wouldn't be wasted, as we would have a lot of financial flexibility going forward.

[adambr2]

I don't think Weeks a waste of money, I thought he was a good signing and still do. I can't be too upset about K-Rod as I was excited about it at the time.

 

What I tire of hearing, from both the brass and fans, is the small market excuse. We have the 10th highest payroll in baseball, which is pretty remarkable. We were never going to be spending as much as the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, etc, and never will.

 

Right now, the 10th highest payroll has us the 22nd best record in baseball. There are 12 teams right now doing more with less (in some cases, a lot less) -- the Pirates, Rays, D'Backs, Jays, Indians, Nationals, Orioles, Reds, Braves, Mets, Dodgers, and White Sox.

 

There is 1 single team doing less with more -- Philly.

 

That's not very efficient. Is the wins that a GM is able to buy with the money that he is allocated not as good of a measure of a GM as anything else? I could live with this if this had been a transitional period when we've been phasing out some vets and restocking the farm, but that's not been the case.

[adambr2]

At some point, you have to take maximum advantage of a window.

 

Well, they almost destroyed their financial flexibility and left their farm in shambles, so I guess they could've went all the way and completely destroyed their financial flexibility and left their farm completely devoid of talent. That would make being a Brewer fan really fun for the next decade.

 

If "the best team on paper" always won the World Series, then the Yankees would've won about 15 straight World Series. They don't, so to me "going all in" at the expense of the future isn't a good strategy. Remember that this year is supposed to be an "all in" year for the Brewers as well, but things often go against some teams and for others. The odds of winning in a "window" are small, and then you're terrible and have no chance of winning. A team with budgetary constraints that is sitting on the wrong end of the "uneven financial playing field" can't try to beat the guys with seemingly unlimited resources at their own game. If "going all in" means signing potentially-franchise-crippling-contracts and trading all your prospects, then I never want to see the Brewers "go all in."

 

We've fallen in love with our own guys to the extent that we believe that no one else could fill their shoes unless they're Cy Young winners or multiple-time All Stars. That's not the case. If you build the system right, there should always be players waiting to contribute. Sure that means occasionally trading good players while they're still good to bring in young talent at positions of need. That's how you remain continually good as opposed to being terrible for years at a time, then having a "short window" before once again being terrible for a long time.

 

Prince Fielder is a .900 OPS 1B. He is a good player. He is not some once-in-a-lifetime player around whom the fate of the entire Brewer nation revolved. This thought of a "window while we had Prince" was man-made. Melvin tried trading Prince, but his expectations were way too high. No playoff team (the ones who would trade for one year of a player) can afford to give up two young pitchers from their MLB rotation. When no GM would match these unrealistic expectations, Melvin decided to sacrifice the future for a shot at the World Series. Because he lost track of the long-term in favor of the short-term for a while, we're now in a position where we could be pretty bad going forward and I still hear cries of "we're still in it this year, we should trade more prospects for a shot at the playoffs."

 

If we had traded Prince, maybe we wouldn't have had our "magical 2011," which ended in our raising a "Division Champions" banner in front of the World Series champs this season. What would've happened had Melvin decided to trade Prince instead of "going for it" is purely speculation. I would guess that we would have recieved a young MLB pitcher and a good prospect for him, and we probably wouldn't have made the Marucm and Greinke trades. We'd have Lawrie at 3B, so the Ramirez deal wouldn't have been made. We'd have Escobar at SS and the pitcher we received in the Prince trade for the foreseeable future, with Odorizzi nearly ready to step in along with the rest of our talented young pitching. In other words, maybe last year wouldn't have been a playoff year (or maybe it would have, we don't know), but the future would be a lot brighter, and a lot of the "wasted money" (to the topic of the thread) wouldn't be wasted, as we would have a lot of financial flexibility going forward.

 

I agree. You do this the right way, and you end up with a situation like the Rays are in, where they have limited payroll flexibility but are perennial contenders because of the way they built their system and have a continuously stocked farm system which allows them to continue this cycle. Meanwhile, we have a higher payroll and a poor farm system.

 

The Brewers had the makings of this cycle, but were hampered by two things -- failure to draft good starting pitching, and impatience. When Mark A started to open his coffers, eventually the team started seeing these "windows" to win and the temptation was just too much for them to pass up, so they sacrificed the farm system and bloated the payroll down with overpaid players to give themselves a better shot within that window.

 

In reality, the window was always there, it was just a matter of being patient and building from within, but that's what we've gotten away from since 2008. We can continue to try to tread water and "go for it" one last time in the second half, but the bottom line is that the Brewers current business model is not sustainable for the long-term without a $150M+ payroll to support it. We are already getting to the point where the roster becomes bogged down with expensive veterans, and there aren't enough cheap 0-3 players in the system of either high quality potential or quantity role players to fill in the gaps.

[igor67]

The Rays accomplishments have been impressive, but the seeds of that success were multiple years of drafting in the top 5 to get a massive amount of premium talent both pitching and hitting. I can't think of another team in the modern farm system usage who has been able to sustain that level of farm system development on both sides year in and year out. This argument reminds me of when everyone pointed to the As. It turns out they didn't have a special sauce for developing pitchers, they just happened to get 3 top level guys who panned out together. It is kind of ironic coming from the sample size minded sabermetric community, but you can't point to one outstanding success and assume that is the universal template. The Rays have had a fair amount of luck on the development side just like Oakland did. This is not mutually exclusive with them making good decisions, but it also doesn't mean that if the Brewers had followed an alternate path they would have developed into multi-year challengers for the NL central in perpetuity.

[DHonks]

Just thinking back, but have the Rays had much recent success with hitters? They do a great job with 1-year contracts and hit on some studs, but the real story of their success has been their pitching. They haven't had a lot of ace-types, but they've had a lot of #2-3 type pitchers. They've had such good depth that they always seem to be trading one, replacing him with another good option. And they've also had great success with bullpen reclamation projects like Grant Balfour and even Troy Percival.