Jonah Keri of Grantland NAILS it...

[dlk9s]

brewers will go 18-144 this season, winning only monday games. calling it.

 

Didn't you start the optimism in all caps post last season? This cannot be a good omen.

He's optimistic that the Brewers will win ALL of their Monday games!

[rluzinski]

I agree that you don't want to put too much emphasis on Spring training performance, but at the same time there's value even if it's just monitoring velocity. Rogers is an example of why Spring training performance means something, because he clearly wasn't ready to go to start the season.

 

I look at it as performance vs. the result of that performance. I care if Rogers does or does not have good velocity, movement or location in a small amount of innings against mixed talent. I hardly care at all about the results of that performance because we KNOW that it is going to do a poor job of estimating performance. The more the innings, the more results = performance.

[faede]

Of course, to do that you have to have a well-thought out plan reaching well into the future, and I'm not sure they do at the moment.

 

Really?

 

I see a very distinct plan. A difficult one, to be certain as small market teams will always be WELL behind the curve, but, there's definitely some planning here.

 

Outside looking in (and I don't presume to know a tenth of what Attanasio and Melvin about business and management of a baseball team).. the strategy appears to me to be:

 

1. Lock in your core. If you find a piece that is likely to be your within your core, lock it up if at all possible for as long as possible to avoid free agent losses. (Braun, Weeks, Hart, Gallardo)

2. Because you don't have unlimited resources, you need to be a bit risky in "projecting" the core to catch them before they potentially "blow up" and get too expensive (Lucroy, Gomez)

3. Identify holes in the core: Fill those holes by:

- Using prospects (who seem to be overvalued) to acquire fill-ins who aren't hugely expensive (Greinke, Marcum, Sabbatia)

- Acquiring cheap free agents (Gorzelanny, Saito, Hawkins)

- Flyers on cast offs, question marks (Nyjer, K-Rod, Aoki)

- And as much quantity as possible within the minors in spots that are problematic (SP: Hellweg, Peralta, Rogers, Burgos, Thornburg, Fiers etc).

- Use very cheap veteran MLB backups to keep the prospects in the minors playing every day.

4. When a hole looks huge and no options appear imminent in the minors, go for mid level free agents to fill it (Aramis, Lohse) as long as it doesn't break your budget.

[TURBO]

Yet when our HUGE looking hole at 1B emerged, we did nothing but sign Yuni B... (far from a mid level free agent, and far from a guy who can play the position.)

 

*nervous laugh*

 

It still hurts to even think this is going to be our solution until someone finally realizes a mistake has been made.

[Oxy]

Yeah, the Gonzalez and Betancourt signings weren't "part of the plan" and I should not have said that signing those two along with Lohse "pretty much negated that whole strategy." It was just Lohse.

 

Russ nicely parsed out the difference between "perfomance" and "results" in spring training which was a bit muddy as well.

 

Overall, I like the job Melvin and Attansio are doing. In the last 5 years, we've traded LaPorta, Brantley, Lawrie, Escobar, Jeffries, Odorizzi, Cain, 2 years of JJ Hardy and 2 months of Z Greinke for 2 months of CC Sabathia (and a playoff appearance), 2 years of Marcum and Greinke (and a playoff appearance), Gomez, Segura, Hellweg and Pena.

 

I have a hard time understanding how people can complain about this. If Odorizzi turns into an ace then it might be close, but right now Melvin has a pretty good track record. If he can offload a few of the current veterans before their contracts expire and get a decent return then he is still in the black.

 

I wouldn't mind changing up the scouting director and development program, however. Our draft picks since Lawrie have been uninspiring to say the least, which is why I like the current "big-market" strategy. Until we show that we can draft and develop a player or two I don't trust our ability to build from within even if that is the best long-term plan for a market our size.

[bjkrautk]

Whether or not the Brewers had a plan going into the season is one thing, and I get how losing your top 4 options on the corner IF depth chart (Hart, Ramirez, Gamel, Green, +/- Bianchi) poses a challenge, but the Brewers have a young player on the roster right now who can't get a sniff at the lineup.

 

I don't follow the minor league teams as closely as many of you, so I will defer to experience, but is Josh Prince that much worse an option at 3b than Betancourt (.290 career OBP / .391 career SLG // .681 career OPS) or Gonzalez (.292 OBP / .399 Slg. // .690 OPS)? I came away from Sunday's game impressed with Prince's ABs (a double and a loud out to the warning track). Why not let the guy have a start to see what he could do in a full game?

[monty57]

faede, I agree that there is something there that could be in some way called a "plan," I just don't see it as really cohesive and well thought out. There's too much patchwork, and decisions seemingly made on the fly. Also, while it was executable when starting from a low payroll base with a lot of star-quality, inexpensive talent, during a period in which attendance and revenues were steadily increasing, it doesn't seem like an executable plan in a smaller market when the attendance and revenues are maxed out and may even decline (if we can't continuously maintain 3MM attendance) and we don't have much star-quality, inexpensive talent. It's a system that can work in the right circumstances for a short period of time, but not for the long-term.

 

Let's move to the "real world" for a second. We've all seen businesses that have a good product, are "hot" for a short period, gorw faster than they can account for and then fade into obscurity. Why is it that restaurants close at an alarming rate, but McDonald's never close? Why is it that retail stores close all the time, but Wal-Marts don't? Both of these businesses are extremely efficient and have every aspect of their plan down to a tee. The astounding success of each of these businesses is not because either of them have better products (probably to opposite is true), but because they have created the better system. Whatever the field, the "winner" in that field lays down a long-term plan, has a systematized way of doing things, and doesn't put short-term success ahead of long-term goals. That's how efficient management works. The ability some have to "predict the future" and wipe out the competition is really the ability to implement a well thought out plan that can be systematized and run over and over again.

 

I think there are teams in baseball that have implemented efficient plans and are using them to build sustainably good franchises. Efficiently run teams don't fill holes with last-minute patches, they realize where the hole is going to be well in advance of that hole opening up, and secure a fix before the hole ever opens. No matter what, they don't give up on their long-term plans. I don't think the Brewers are one of those. I think we had the opportunity to be one of those, started on the path to being one of those, but took the wrong turn and went for the "window."

 

Just contrast what we've done with the Rangers, who are even further along then we were in the recent past. They refused to trade away their top guys for Greinke last year, because they knew they'd need them in the future, and they refused to give up a draft pick and a lot of money to sign a pitcher in his mid-30's to a multi-year deal (Lohse). They took a lot of flak for these moves, but they have a plan, and didn't let outside stimuli force them off their plan, even if it meant limiting their chances of the playoffs in one season. They're still stacked up-and-down their system, and even though they've maintained success for quite a while now, I could see them continuing on as a playoff favorite for the long-term, even though they play in a very tough division.

 

They're kind of doing the opposite of what the Brewers do, and that's where I was going when I said I don't think we have a "well-thought out plan reaching well into the future."

[faede]

Yet when our HUGE looking hole at 1B emerged, we did nothing but sign Yuni B... (far from a mid level free agent, and far from a guy who can play the position.)

 

*nervous laugh*

 

It still hurts to even think this is going to be our solution until someone finally realizes a mistake has been made.

 

It's not a solution. It's a band-aid.

 

The "plan" was Hart with Gamel as a backup. Gamel isn't in the "prospect" mold anymore, he is what he is and he fits the mold of a cheap backup. Green was probably plan C. Gonzalez plan D. Yuni is Plan E as a temporary measure. Once you get to plan E, it's safe to say that the plan is completely screwed and you just make do until Plan B/C/D are doable.

 

I personally think Melvin is avoiding bringing up Morris or Halton to keep them in the minors for evaluation purposes. They are options next year if Hart is gone.

[faede]

They're kind of doing the opposite of what the Brewers do, and that's where I was going when I said I don't think we have a "well-thought out plan reaching well into the future."

 

Your post is very well thought out and I applaud the kindhearted debate.

 

I'd argue that the Brewers approach is very similar to the Rangers. They had a run and are now re-loading for another potential run. The Rangers have a bigger wallet the Milwaukee, but I can see some very similar concepts in practice.

 

Cliff Lee trade, CC Sabathia trade.

Braun locked up, Andrus locked up

Lock up core pieces: Hart, Weeks, Gallardo v. Kinsler, Young, Harrison

Take a shot types (I'd argue that the Rangers REALLY hit the jackpot on this): Aoki, Nyjer v. Hamilton, Cruz

Fill in holes with Free Agents (I'd argue that the Rangers can spend a lot more then us on this): Ramirez, Lohse v. Darvish, Beltre

 

Both the Rangers and the Brewers are somewhat taking a breath this season to re-load their window. Maybe I'm delusional, but I see them as very similar situations.

[logan82]

Why is it that restaurants close at an alarming rate, but McDonald's never close? Why is it that retail stores close all the time, but Wal-Marts don't? Both of these businesses are extremely efficient and have every aspect of their plan down to a tee. The astounding success of each of these businesses is not because either of them have better products (probably to opposite is true), but because they have created the better system.

It's because they cater to the masses. Same thing with light beer and the Brewers. The product sucks but they are inoffensive.

 

Edit: I don't mean to say their product sucks. Their approach does.

[MNBrew]

Monty, you seem convinced that the Lohse signing was a business move made primarily to placate the masses -- a reasoned yet very jaded take -- and I don't sense that you're open to seeing it any other way no matter the logic presented.

 

On the contrary, I'm convinced it was a baseball move motivated by need (enough young banked-on pitchers not cutting it) ... and made possible by the unique circumstances of one of the top FA SPs dangling on the market for long enough (due to the draft pick compensation issue) to bring the price down to a justifiable level.

 

Having one of the best offenses in all of MLB returning basically intact (esp. once Hart returns) would be wasted if a move wasn't made to boost the pitching . . . in other words, a repeat of the Macha years (very strong offenses & horrid pitching) was a very real possibility. And that would be a terribly foolish way to allow the team to go.

 

Best of all, NO legit prospects were traded in any moves this whole winter until the pick was lost via the Lohse signing, so I really can't see the validity of any assertions that long-term plans were seriously compromised by any moves they made this winter.

 

In the meantime, should enough young guys start performing -- whether in the rotation, OF, wherever -- suddenly we have enough depth to trade a proven player (i.e., big contract) so the young guy can become the everyday player, which is a very sound fiscal approach should the baseball side of it merit the move.

 

The current 1B situation is simply a deal that required Melvin to "punt." It wasn't 'til a bit after the WBC that Green became injured, so it's not like there was a wealth of obviously good moves to be made -- no high quality players available for cheap. There was a reason they kept Morris & Halton in camp so long, and I very much believe that if, at the time, the Brewers felt one of those guys was the best 1B option through May, they would've added 'em to the Opening Day roster. If either of those guys swings the bat well enough to be considered "on track" and Yuni still stinks, it's both cheap & easy to release Yuni and purchase the contract of Halton or Morris. It's a 2-month (at least) problem and we're 8 games into the season -- hardly an irreconcilable situation!

[logan82]

If either of those guys swings the bat well enough to be considered "on track" and when Yuni still stinks, it's both cheap & easy to release Yuni and purchase the contract of Halton or Morris. It's a 2-month (at least) problem and we're 8 games into the season -- hardly an irreconcilable situation!

I am not convinced Melvin will actually cut Yuni. I really want to believe he will. I have no faith he will.

[MNBrew]

It says something to me that they wanted Gonzalez back even after his injury & missing the last 3/4 of the year but showed no interest in Yuni at all until they had to dig around on the scrap pile to find a better alternative than Donnie Murphy. Once Green (hopefully sooner than later) and Hart return, Yuni & Gonzalez will be filling the same roles off the bench, and even if their offensive game is very similar, there's of course no comparison defensively, which logically would make Yuni the odd man out.

[dlk9s]

I kind of want the Brewers to keep Yuni once a couple guys come off the DL. I'm just interested to see how quickly the internet in Wisconsin would break.

[lcbj68c]

I have a hard time understanding how people can complain about this. If Odorizzi turns into an ace then it might be close, but right now Melvin has a pretty good track record. If he can offload a few of the current veterans before their contracts expire and get a decent return then he is still in the black.

 

I wouldn't mind changing up the scouting director and development program, however. Our draft picks since Lawrie have been uninspiring to say the least, which is why I like the current "big-market" strategy. Until we show that we can draft and develop a player or two I don't trust our ability to build from within even if that is the best long-term plan for a market our size.

 

Ding, Ding, Ding!! Tell em what he's won, Johnny!

 

I don't think the Brewers have "conditioned" me at all to expect, nor demand, a big ticket signing. I think they were content to do without any signing until injuries and lack of performance forced their hand. Money within the range and recent talent shown by Lohse was the motivator, not pre-season ticket metrics.

 

The cupboard isn't bare, it's just full of junk food. And that isn't because we traded away opportunities to go the store.....it's just whoever has been going the store either forgot the list or doesn't know how to thump a watermelon!

[TheCrew07]

I'd argue that the Brewers approach is very similar to the Rangers.

 

As someone who's followed the Rangers as a organization very closely for some years I disagree with you.

 

First, the Rangers have much greater financial resources at their disposal, they are major players in Latin America and can afford large contracts to marquee players. Historically the Brewers haven't done much internationally and there's just no way we can compete for marquee players in FA, that's been repeatedly proven.

 

Second, the Rangers are an extremely progressive organization when it comes to developing talent, they are out in front, trying new things with pitchers, forcing position players (even Profar) to learn multiple positions, and so on. The Brewers on the other hand have been slow to adapt methods only picking proven trends and tend to do everything in a much more conservative manner from a development standpoint.

 

Third, Daniels adjusts on the fly, buying and selling players with a long-term goal in mind, for example, he wouldn't trade any of his top prospects last year for Greinke, he's been to 2 World Series and knew better than to give up Profar or Olt for a couple of months of a marquee pitcher. However, he's also sold high on players like Teixeira and bought high on players Lee depending on the situation, but he always trades from a position of strength to do so. As I pointed out in a different thread Daniels has been very good at creating multiple options for the construction of his MLB roster.

 

Texas has the farm system, progressive development strategies, financial clout, and finally an aggressive GM to maximize the resources they have on hand. By contrast the Brewers haven't drafted well, traded away an entire wave of prospects for 4 total years of 3 different pitchers, aren't all that active in Latin America, don't have the financial resources to sign marquee contracts, and Melvin is on the opposite end spectrum when it comes to valuing talent... Daniels is always chasing impact players, Melvin is chasing replacing player A's production with the most affordable player he sign in player B... there's a wide gulf between those 2 concepts both in quality of talent and length of team control.

 

I'm not sure if it was in this thread or another but someone posted something about favoring the "big market strategy" because the Brewers haven't proven they could draft and develop the necessary talent. That's absolutely true from a pitching standpoint, but the problem is that the"big market strategy" never has been and never will be sustainable for Milwaukee. As we have witnessed eventually the prospect well goes dry and then what? You end up with an aging and expensive MLB roster with little talent behind it, eventually the pay out paces the actual production and it all comes crashing down like it did for the Cubs. Then what? We rebuild and start over? I honestly despise that notion, I want no part of a rebuild.

 

We aren't able to plug our holes with marquee FAs like those big market teams do. If they don't have a prospect to fill a position or traded the prospect away, they just spend $100 million on someone, but that's not our reality as a franchise. I want no part of that strategy, I'm actively campaigning against the moves that make a complete rebuild necessary, but we've been on that path for a long time.

 

More often than not we need to be sellers, we need to cycle talent until we can get to a place where we can sustain a MLB roster from within and look to FA to provide role-players, not key pieces to try and build around. Our pitching problem keeps coming back around because it's just been continually patched through trades and poor FA signings... Sabathia less than a year, Greinke less than 2 minus DL time, Marcum less than 2 minus DL time... we traded all of that talent for about 4 years worth of innings from 3 different pitchers, that's not good value for the Brewers. The problem of course is that there are only a couple of deals a year for young pitching and if you get beat to the punch by TB or some other organization that's effectively cycling pitching then you're left making the trades Melvin has done.

 

Signing the FAs we've signed from a pitching standpoint has been a joke really... if you sign all league averagish starters then league average is the best your rotation is going to be. However come the playoffs how do we match up a rotation with 1 #2 type starter and 4 #3 or worse starters against rotations that have a true Ace and a couple of #2s? Pitching is king in baseball, good pitching almost always defeats good hitting, there's no such thing as "good enough" pitching in a playoff series. Over the course of 162 games sure you can beat teams and win enough games with that kind of rotation but come the playoffs with all of the rest in-between games it comes down to individual match-ups... How do our best pitchers match up against the other team?

 

That's the key point for me and has been since 2008, how do we acquire enough impact pitching that we can control for at least 3 seasons to compete against the big boys? We can't sign it in FA, we can't continually trade for it because the prospect well runs dry nor can we afford to retain the players in FA, and the same problem just keeps coming back around, so what's left? The obvious answer is to trade MLB veterans that you can part with (yes it may negatively impact the current season to do so, though as Greinke's trade proved the loss of one player is generally overstated) to acquire what we need the most, impact pitching for the starting rotation. We could have traded a couple of Hart, Hardy, Fielder, Axford... whomever at their peak value to go after pitching but we didn't, and here we are, with the same scenarios repeating themselves over and over.

 

Once we get enough pitching everything else will fall into place, the problem hasn't been the position players, the problem has always been and continues to be our pitching. We've only been in the top half of the NL in pitching twice in Melvin's tenure, and both times it was after he traded for short term CY quality marquee pitching. There has to be other paths or different options, I refuse to accept that this is the best we can do... 1 homegrown top of the rotation type and bunch of aging vets or inexperienced guys with marginal stuff behind them sandwiched around 1-2 years of a marquee player acquired via trade which we have no hope to resign. I would have much rather traded 1 or 2 of our position players along the way to acquire enough pitching talent to be a top 5 rotation year in and year out than mess around trying to out slug the opposition 2 out of every 3 years.

 

As I said even if we get to the playoffs where do we go? How do we match-up? For a small market team like Milwaukee young cost controlled pitching has to come first and then we go from there... that's the only way we'll ever be able to compete talent wise with the best rotations in baseball and the only way we'll ever truly compete for a WS. Aggregates and sample size are meaningless in the playoffs, it all comes down to the individual match-ups. We don't match-up well today with any of the best teams from a pitching standpoint, we don't get enough innings out of starting pitchers leaving too many innings for the bullpen. I'm not talking about this early 2013 season stuff, I'm talking about the average innings per start for each pitcher in the rotation in their career.

 

Build a solid young rotation, put the excess pitching in the pen, fill in the remaining holes from the positional side and away we go. It's much easier to get good value from mid tier position players in FA than mid tier pitching. Doing those things we achieve the flexibility that matters most, flexibility of talent, and with that will also come payroll flexibility and the ability to take on the salary of a "key piece for the stretch run" that so many covet.

[danzig6767]

If the Brewers farm system can ever start drafting and developing more quality pitching, they'd be in a much better place, be it the pen and rotation. It's pretty amazing just how futile this franchise has been at drafting and developing pitching over a long time now, while so many other teams have been able to at much better rates.

 

By just simple statistical odds it would seem almost hard to have developed so few quality pitchers over a long period of time when you consider all of the picks spent on pitchers. It's been a constant yearly situation of having to find both starters and relievers via trades, free agency, or off the scrap heap where guys like Kolb, Axford, Turnbow, Matt Wise, D. Davis, Estrada, etc pan out better than expected, at least for awhile.

 

Besides the long time woeful drafting of pitching, since Seid has taken over, he's yet to draft a single guy that looks to be a potential really high end prospect. Granted, it's still pretty early in his tenure, some of his picks are very young, and he wasn't blessed to draft in the top 5-10 as Jack Z did, but it sure would be nice if at least a pick or two of his would start showing some wow factor. Very mediocre drafting will catch up with any small market franchise.

[monty57]

Monty, you seem convinced that the Lohse signing was a business move made primarily to placate the masses -- a reasoned yet very jaded take -- and I don't sense that you're open to seeing it any other way no matter the logic presented.

 

On the contrary, I'm convinced it was a baseball move motivated by need (enough young banked-on pitchers not cutting it) ... and made possible by the unique circumstances of one of the top FA SPs dangling on the market for long enough (due to the draft pick compensation issue) to bring the price down to a justifiable level.

 

I said that I believe the Lohse move was done in part because of ticket sales. Baseball is a business, so revenues and expenses will always matter. Of course they believe that he will help this year's team, but they also have to have some trepidation about giving a three-year deal to a guy in his mid-30s. It's fairly likely that we will have at least five pitchers better than Lohse while he is still under contract. Not better than he's been the past two years, but better than he will be over the next few seasons.

 

MLB teams have two goals, winning games and making money. Sometimes these goals correlate positively, and sometimes negatively. The Brewers certainly saw that they would be better this year with Lohse, possibly even sneaking into the playoffs, which was a real long shot without him. But they also saw weak ticket sales, and the signing of Lohse immediately boosted those sales. For this season, Lohse helps them achieve both of their goals (at least "on paper" going into the season). However, adding his guaranteed salary also pretty much guarantees at least a $100MM payroll next year, which is why I think we need to have a good showing on the field this year, or we will see at least one of our high-salaried players traded before next season, and as I mentioned above, he'll probably not be one of our best five starters by the final year of his contract. It was a deal to help which aids in the "right now," while adding risk in the future.

 

I just have to pick on the "enough young banked-on pitchers not cutting it" comment. Melvin and company knew going into ST what they had in thier rotation. If they used spring training to determine whether or not they could count on Fiers, Narveson and Estrada, then they aren't as smart as I think they are. Rogers is the only "surprise" in that his fastball velocity was down, but he really was the biggest question mark to begin with. His negaitve was probably offset by the positive of Narveson proving his arm was healthy and Burgos pitching very well as a key starter in the WBC. They're smart enough that they didn't get blindsided by what they saw in spring training.

 

we need to cycle talent until we can get to a place where we can sustain a MLB roster from within and look to FA to provide role-players, not key pieces to try and build around.

 

Excellent post, Crew07, but I will add to this snippet that I consider waiting until a player is in their last year of team control before extending them to a market-value extension to be very similar to signing a free agent. I'm a huge proponent of signing players to Lucroy-type extensions. Assuming health and good play, I'd love to see them extend Segura and Peralta next offseason. However, I don't like extending a guy in his last season. If he didn't prove enough to merit an extension prior to his final year, then he's not a core guy to build around, especially at a market value rate.

 

People focus on the prospects we traded away for MLB players, but a large part of the reason our system is depleted is that we rarely traded any MLB players away for prospects. We either let them walk as free agents, or we extend them when they're well into their arby years, guaranteeing eight-figure salaries through their mid-30s and foregoing the opportunity to re-stock the system with young, exciting, inexpensive talent.

 

I was happy as a lark when we finally traded Greinke last year, and it seems most people here are very happy with that trade. I think there's a good chance that if we had pulled a few more of those trades over the years, they would've turned out okay as well, and our forward-looking situation right now would probably look a lot better.

[Roderick]

If either of those guys swings the bat well enough to be considered "on track" and when Yuni still stinks, it's both cheap & easy to release Yuni and purchase the contract of Halton or Morris. It's a 2-month (at least) problem and we're 8 games into the season -- hardly an irreconcilable situation!

I am not convinced Melvin will actually cut Yuni. I really want to believe he will. I have no faith he will.

 

I have a question. Is Yuni really being paid $900K for this season? If so, why? Is there a veteran minimum wage that is more than the $490K?

 

I know he had a decent spring training, but I highly doubt there was going to be a bidding war for him. Seems to me that a lower amount would have been just fine, especially considering I hope that he is the one cut when Hart comes back.

[Oxy]

I was happy as a lark when we finally traded Greinke last year, and it seems most people here are very happy with that trade. I think there's a good chance that if we had pulled a few more of those trades over the years, they would've turned out okay as well, and our forward-looking situation right now would probably look a lot better.

 

We could've/should've traded Prince. That's about it. We traded Hardy and Greinke and got very good returns on those trades. We've extended everybody else who would have any trade value at all--and for reasonable amounts (other than Bill Hall). Suppan was obviously a bad signing that likely came from Attanasio. Wolf was a mediocre signing. Ramirez and Lohse are still to be determined, but Ramirez is looking good so far as long as he comes back soon.

 

Hopefully we can trade away at least a couple of the contracts of Weeks, Hart, Ramirez, and Lohse and get some MLB caliber starting players.

[logan82]

Decline in production and injury were the two biggest concerns I believe most people had with the Ramirez signing.

 

I have no idea how Yuni got a MLB contract let alone more than league minimum.

[MNBrew]

Melvin and company knew going into ST what they had in thier rotation. If they used spring training to determine whether or not they could count on Fiers, Narveson and Estrada, then they aren't as smart as I think they are.

I don't think they were approaching ST with the intent of determining if they could count on those guys -- not at all. The young-ish (since Narveson's not young but the others are) guys were the plan. Rogers ended up stinking badly, Narveson's not SP-ready (or even game-ready at the moment) and Fiers has yet to turn anything around from September since the start of ST, so they had to modify the plan. Failure to do that would've been sheer idiocy.

 

It's nice they sold 4,500 or so individual tix the day they signed Lohse -- nice, but not major in the grand scheme of 3MM-ish tix -- but that will easily be negated by unsold tickets if the team stinks. Melvin's shown a zillion times over that he doesn't make moves for publicity's sake, just to try to improve the team. Some of his moves don't pan out, but his decade-plus in Milwaukee shows that his hits clearly & substantially outnumber his misses.

[RobertR]

I agree that you don't want to put too much emphasis on Spring training performance, but at the same time there's value even if it's just monitoring velocity. Rogers is an example of why Spring training performance means something, because he clearly wasn't ready to go to start the season.

 

I look at it as performance vs. the result of that performance. I care if Rogers does or does not have good velocity, movement or location in a small amount of innings against mixed talent. I hardly care at all about the results of that performance because we KNOW that it is going to do a poor job of estimating performance. The more the innings, the more results = performance.

 

Just to follow up, I agree. I couldn't care less what an individual pitcher's ERA, WHIP, W-L record, etc. is in Spring Training vs. questionable competition and with questionable teammates. But, velocity, location, command, health, etc. are things to keep an eye on. I agree that you shouldn't change your plans without a good reason because of a lousy or great spring training game or several, but, at the same time, how could anyone look at Rogers' performance in the spring and not say, "we better look at Plan B"? Adjusting to relevant data, with the idea that what is relevant isn't necessarily stats, is what I expect any smart organization to do.

[Ennder]

Just contrast what we've done with the Rangers, who are even further along then we were in the recent past. They refused to trade away their top guys for Greinke last year, because they knew they'd need them in the future, and they refused to give up a draft pick and a lot of money to sign a pitcher in his mid-30's to a multi-year deal (Lohse). They took a lot of flak for these moves, but they have a plan, and didn't let outside stimuli force them off their plan, even if it meant limiting their chances of the playoffs in one season. They're still stacked up-and-down their system, and even though they've maintained success for quite a while now, I could see them continuing on as a playoff favorite for the long-term, even though they play in a very tough division.

 

This seems pretty biased. They tried very hard to trade for Greinke they just got out bid and they tried hard to sign Greinke and were in on Lohse as well and I'm willing to bet if the Brewers don't get that deal done at that price the Rangers do. I'm sure he picked the NL rather than the AL. They have blocked top prospects with marginal guys like Moreland now and in the past have made some really questionable trades of top end talent like the Chris Davis trade for a bullpen arm.

 

The Brewers definitely took a win now approach to the team and it will hurt the long term. We have already felt the effects from bringing up the first wave of prospects a season too early and that has snowballed a bit lately. The big hit was when we didn't get a top pick from Sabathia or Sheets when we thought we would get one from each of them. That one single off season completely turned around the direction of the minor leagues.

[nate82]

 

I don't follow the minor league teams as closely as many of you, so I will defer to experience, but is Josh Prince that much worse an option at 3b than Betancourt (.290 career OBP / .391 career SLG // .681 career OPS) or Gonzalez (.292 OBP / .399 Slg. // .690 OPS)? I came away from Sunday's game impressed with Prince's ABs (a double and a loud out to the warning track). Why not let the guy have a start to see what he could do in a full game?

 

Prince is a utility player not an everyday player. I wouldn't mind seeing him play more but he really shouldn't be an option as an everyday player. Prince is a lot like Hall where he can play a lot of positions passibly but unlike Hall Prince has very little power in his bat.

 

Prince will replace Green at some point as the utility player on the team as he can play more positions than Green can.