Should the Brewers just rebuild?

[Ennder]

They're less important for a team looking to be around .500.

 

I think we are probably just going into the season with very different expectations. I expect the Brewers to compete for a playoff spot and losing a win or two is a big deal. I also expect the team to try to maximize the years we have Braun because he creates a rather special window for us that we might not get again soon so any trade really does have to be aimed at 2013/2014 and not a true rebuilding type move.

[endaround]

The Brewers are above average at every position except perhaps shortstop. Expecting that to happen again is foolish. Yes the pitching is questionable, but that is why this was the year the Brewers could have added a solid starter via free agency. Instead ownership decided to wring $20 million out in profits.

[monty57]

The Brewers are above average at every position except perhaps shortstop...Yes the pitching is questionable,

 

Pitching is a pretty important "position." In fact, it's about 12 important positions, for which we don't have many players without significant question marks.

 

Instead ownership decided to wring $20 million out in profits.

 

Or the "window" strategy they played for the past few years left the owners with little to no profit, culminating in a probable loss last year when they went "all in" and didn't get the playoff revenue they expected, so now they're finally trying to get some profit from their investment in a year in which they probably expect attendance to fall and probably don't expect playoff revenues. It's easy to spend other people's money (ask Washington). It's not so easy when it's your own money.

 

I also expect the team to try to maximize the years we have Braun because he creates a rather special window for us

 

I believe that is exactly how the Astros felt with Bagwell/Biggio. I don't want to end up where they've been recently. There always seems to be a reason to forget all financial responsibility, and those reasons are usually emotional. Making business decisions based on emotions is usually not a good long-term strategy.

 

Oldcity in his original post mentioned trading as much as 5-6 important starters. That's a ton.

 

I agree with this, and do not think we should go through with this type of rebuild, as it would probably be disasterous. I don't think trading Hart, who is basically an average MLB 1b and/or Gomez who many wanted to DFA prior to last season is a rebuild.

 

Ask yourself why should we trade Hart right now when everything is set for 2013 and it's looking good?

 

Everything is not "looking good." Our rotation is very suspect. They looked alright at the end of last season, so there is promise there, but there are also a lot of question marks. Our bullpen is rebuilt, but still suspect. There's probably a 50/50 shot that the guys we discarded will outplay the guys we picked up. That's the nature of most relief pitchers.

 

I think that if all goes well, we could make the playoffs, or at least the one-game coin flip that now constitutes the wild card. Our baseline is probably around a .500 record. If some things go wrong, we'll win 70-some games. We certainly aren't looking as good as we did going into 2012 with a similar offense and a much better starting rotation. We're essentially rebuilding this year already with the rotation we're using, so the title of this topic may be mis-leading. We're just keeping a good enough team together that hopefully through the rebuild we'll still keep fans believing enough that they show up at the gates. It's a rebuild I'd like to continue by trading away tradeable pieces when we have inexpensive in-house options like Schafer and Gamel ready to step in.

 

I believe we all know that Mark A philosophy is to win now with an eye on the future

 

I've never spoke to the man. If you have heard him say that his strategy is to always play to "win now," please share. To me, he seems to be a pretty good businessman and investor who has done a lot to increase the revenue streams for the Brewers. He also seems to feel that increasing payroll when it seems likely that the team will bring in playoff revenue and draw 3MM+ fans makes sense (as he did the past couple years), but also that payroll needs to drop when the playoff revenue doesn't seem as likely and attendance could take a hit (like he has this offseason).

 

revenue will be increasing soon

 

But relative revenue seems to be shrinking as more teams get huge TV deals.

 

Is it because you think Hart is going to start declining soon?

 

Define "soon." If given a 3-4 year extension (extending beyond 2013), Hart will be in his mid-30's by the time the extension ended, so yes, I think he will decline by the end of the extension. Who knows how much. He's changed as a player when he added muscle mass a few years ago and became more of a slugger and less of a sprinter. That probably cost him his knees, so if they go out, he could decline more rapidly. If not, he ought to be able to remain productive, albeit in decline. Since he's about an average MLB 1B now, he'll probably be below average by the end of an extension... we'd just be paying him like a superstar.

 

If Harts asking price isn't extremely expensive

 

Again, define "expensive." He's likely to get $14-15MM / year, which eats up a lot of the Brewers' payroll. Adding that to the other obligations to which the Brewers are committed, and you eat up most of the payroll.

 

We are running out of reasons to trade Corey Hart.

 

To me, it's simple. I don't want to extend him. I think it would be financially irresponsible and he's not a good enough player to justify tying our hands with his contract.

 

Therefore, the question becomes "Is a potential extra win in 2013 worth many potential wins in the future from the player(s) we could get in trade from Hart?" Hart was only a 1.8 WAR player in 2012. Gamel should be able to do that. He was a mid-3 WAR player in 2010 and 2011. Maybe if he does that again, he'd gain us a win or so over Gamel. He is not nearly as good as he's being portrayed.

 

The reason Attanasio cut payroll this year was because we played the "window" strategy and now he has to get some financial sanity back to the team. We have way too much money committed to 2014, so we need to get over that hump before committing any more. I think he's going to make sure not to drive the bus off the cliff the way teams like the Astros and Cubs did. I agree that the likely scenario is that we hold on to Hart to see how the season starts out, because that's the safe way to play it... no worries about fans getting their feelings hurt by trading away a fan-friendly player. However, I don't think Attanasio is crazy enough to hamstring the franchise further with another multi-year deal paying an eight-figure salary to an average player.

[TheCrew07]

The idea should never be to "rebuild" the idea should simply be to "reload" every year...

 

As in we just need to break in a couple of rookies every year that will contribute and keep cycling talent through the organization. That cycle will constantly balance the payroll and keep the Brewers relevant talent wise for years to come.

 

Braun has nothing to do with anything, that's like saying the Packers needed to do this and that when Favre was nearing the end of his tenure... you just do the best you can to sustain the organization long-term and forget about "windows". Talking about windows just frames the discussion in a rather empty manner because the "window" can be used to justify any number of poor personnel decisions that might look good on the surface but actually set the organization back years. The sport is really irrelevant, but I'll use another Packer/Farve example because most people will be familiar. Sherman spent all his time trying maximize Favre's "window" spending in FA and making "veteran" moves but how well did that ultimately serve the organization?

 

I've beat this drum too many times to count, I could give a damn about the playoffs if we don't have the pitching to make a serious run. Squeaking in to get knocked out right away doesn't mean anything to me which is why I haven't been a fan of Melvin for years. I don't buy the "get in anything can happen" mantra that's repeated so often, the reality is that any team needs to find a way to win the pitching match-ups. Yes STL was fortunate one year to have Suppan get hot and pitch the best baseball of his career, but that's not the norm. Baseball is about pitching and when we weren't drafting or developing any of it Melvin needed to be more aggressive pursuing younger impact pitching via trade. The Brewer's reality is that it is extremely unlikely we'll win the bidding for any marquee FA pitching and middling FA pitching is a waste of time from the Brewer perspective, which left us with the trade route. Again, if you aren't developing pitching you'd better find a way to acquire meaningful talent from another means. If all you're doing is continually patching mid range and temporary solutions, the same problems will keep coming back around and never really get solved.

 

Hopefully enough of our young pitching progresses that we finally get on top of the impact pitching situation and can focus elsewhere, we should have built around pitching from the start.

[logan82]

I believe that is exactly how the Astros felt with Bagwell/Biggio. I don't want to end up where they've been recently.

To be fair the Astros made a lot of bad decisions post Bagwell/Biggio. They kept trading away young talent for starters for years and years after those guys were gone.

[Ennder]

Not to mention they made the playoffs 7 out of 10 years from 1997 to 2005 so it is hard to call it a flawed strategy. They made some awful choices towards the end of that era and made some pretty bad drafting as well.

[PrinceFielderx1]

The Brewers bullpen and line-up is exactly where it needs to be. I really like it. As for the starting rotation and SP depth I'm ok with it, and believe they will do well based on what I saw last season. The Brewers know them better than anybody and if they don't feel pressured to go out and get a SP (which "will" block one of their cheaper and potentially better alternatives for years) then I feel even better. Should the Brewers need another SP at mid-season they will have plenty of flexibility to go out and get one and that doesn't even mean they have to trade Hart.

 

If all goes well the Brewers are the division champs and then some, because their offense it just that good and the potential of their Starting rotation is so high. Right now the way things currently are I'm thinking 85-95 wins for this Brewers ball club.

[brewcrewdue80]

http://prospectinsider.com/view/winter-notebook/

 

I hope this link takes you to the article. Anyway, Seattle strikes me as a potential suitor for Hart so I like to read anything that's new with the Mariners. I also browse through the comments to give me an idea what the fanbase considers is their needs. Anyway, Someone brings up 2013 being rebuild years for Brewers/Rockies and the idea of trading for Cargo and or....Braun. This is after some Stanton trade ideas. What floored me is the idea that Braun has nowhere near the value in their minds as Stanton does. That Braun's contract is overinflated and 8years is too much.

Comments taken:

"I think Braun (a consistent 7+ WAR player) would not only be a major catch, but I think it is attainable too...maybe for the package you suggested above...but I don't think we'd have to give up Walker for him, maybe Paxton or Hultzen instead?!"

 

The package above was:

I would think a package of Walker, Franklin, Jaso and Carp would get the conversation started... maybe throw in a reliever too.

 

 

I think it's fun to think a team would think Braun would be tradeable?! He's been extended twice and is a top 5 hitter in all of baseball. and in terms of contract if he was a FA today would be in for a 24 and more MM payday. Brewers have only 2020 where a 2 starts his payday so the immense value Brewers have on him is ridiculous. And the trade package is awful on their suggestions.

 

I don't know if I overvalue what Stanton/Braun are worth but to me I'd think it would start with both Hultzen And Walker not one. And to me it should acquire around 5-7 of the top 10 prospects from an organization. So to me It would be like:

Walker,Hultzen,Franklin,Capps,Miller and Sanchez probably trading away Gennet for the better SS prospect turn Segura to 2b. That's on strictly a prospect perspective.

 

Throwing Jaso/Carp in there. These are always the joke in trade suggestions. The failures to live anywhere to expectations but some team would consider trading for them and losing the prize possession everyone covets?

 

Last year for Brewers fans it was the Morgan/Wolf/Rodriguez/Marcum/Loe throwaways that no team should trade for in their trade ideas.

Anyway just threw this for your viewing pleasure

[trwi7]

I love those fans. Oh no, we might have to give up Kyle Seager to get Giancarlo Stanton!

[MNBrew]

As I mentioned in the Halladay <-> Hart/Gomez/etc. idea thread, and kinda playing off TheCrew07's post above, I'd much rather see the Brewers use Hart & Gomez as the basis of acquiring a #1-type pitcher. TC07 points out the idea of reloading and his illustration brought back to mind the Braves' approach throughout the '90s. There was Chipper and a killer rotation, but over time most of the other positions gradually cycled through, whether with young players or with top players acquired for young players (and/or proven guys) or with the right FA move.

 

To me, if Melvin could find the right team who could use both Hart & Gomez (someone like Philly who could seriously use proven OF bats) and include a promising young player or two without obliterating the core of young talent that's finally providing both promise & depth for the Brewers, it'd be worth it to acquire a Halladay, a Cliff Lee (whom I'd prefer most), or whomever comparable you could pry. The quality of the return would justify the payroll bump. . . . . As TC07 describes, that's a reload that seriously beefs up the pitching, yet which doesn't majorly compromise the offense, and it's that pitching which gives you a legit shot at contention . . . not just for the playoffs, but for a championship.

 

PFx1 would seemingly prefer things as they are with a Hart extension. Less the Hart extension, I'm not afraid of our current chances in '13 either. But I'd feel that much stronger with a proven, on-the-roster-for-a-while ace (like Lee!!!) than I would with the current rotation and with Hart & Gomez still in the lineup.

 

For a team like the Brewers, there's almost inevitably a bit of a gamble that will have to take place with some part of the roster. In '11, it was pretty much only the bench, and that worked. Given the current makeup of the basic/projected 25-man, that gamble is mostly on the rotation. If we could somehow acquire a legit difference-maker for the rotation, I'd willingly gamble on a slightly lesser offense than by gambling quite so fully on the rotation. . . . And I REALLY do like our young starters -- not saying I don't. I just think it'd be completely worth it if you could add a difference-maker SP, especially if part of the cost in the deal are two proven starters a year from potential FA and both have either All-Star credentials or ceiling.

[trwi7]

If you've read anything TC07 has posted over the years, the last thing he wants to do is use Hart and Gomez to acquire a Halladay or Lee (not that we could with those two anyways). That's not the kind of "reloading" he's talking about and it can't really be considered reloading when the players are signed for such a short period of time or their contracts are so big they take up a big chunk of the payroll or both.

[MNBrew]

I've read plenty of his stuff and have taken a different angle, however unlikely. As I said, what he described is one way to look at what the Braves pulled off for 14 years of playoff appearances. Granted, they were the exception. But you have to have a model and the Braves had a great one for sustained success.

 

I'd agree that Hart & Gomez for young, controllable, higher-ceiling talent is, idealistically, an ideal way to go, esp. for a market like Milwaukee. My point was more rooted in the idea that it's worth a long-term difference-maker IF you can get one realistically AND, at least more so, if he's a pitcher (and by long-term, I mean definitely >2 years). Leaning mostly on the bats with too many pitching ???'s is what we did in the Macha years and the results were dreadful. Good offense without strong pitching just isn't likely to get you very far even if it happens to get you to the playoffs.

[JohnBriggs12]

The Macha teams allowed more than 800 runs in both years. Last year, with a complete bullpen collapse the pitching staff allowed 733, around 80 fewer than either Macha team.

 

After Greinke left, there was no dropoff in the quality of the starting pitching. The key was finally dumping Wolf. Look either you have faith that the performances of Estrada, Fiers, Rogers, and Peralta were real and not mirages or you don't. I'm not entirely sure, but I do have faith they are a lot better than the Dave Bush, Manny Parra, Jeff Suppan, Braden Loopers, that we saw in 09 and 10. I also know that economically they have room to make a splash at mid season, much like they did in 2008. So I believe the better comparison is to 2008. Teams can win with lesser "name" starting pitching. Oakland and Baltimore did last year and the Brewers have a much better offense than Oakland.

 

The 2010 season was also sabotaged less by mediocre starting pitching than it was early season bullpen implosions of Hoffman and others. Fielder also suffered through what was for him a lousy year.