Brewers to break team record for payroll in 2014

[Eye Black]

Really interesting interview. The reliever they were talking about being too expensive is most likely Chris Perez, that's the only Nez Balelo represented reliever on the market this year from what I could find. He ended up getting less money than K-Rod. Personally I'd rather have K-Rod, but I'm sure there are some here who will disagree.

That was my assumption as well. Perez played with Braun in college, and was in the category of needing someone to give him an opportunity to bounce back from some performance decline and off the field problems. I actually mentioned him as a possibility back in the 2014 FA Arms thread (#27) due to the fact he was represented by Baleo. Interesting that it may not actually have been that far off as a possibility.

[DoubleSwitch]

Really interesting interview. The reliever they were talking about being too expensive is most likely Chris Perez, that's the only Nez Balelo represented reliever on the market this year from what I could find. He ended up getting less money than K-Rod. Personally I'd rather have K-Rod, but I'm sure there are some here who will disagree.

That was my assumption as well. Perez played with Braun in college, and was in the category of needing someone to give him an opportunity to bounce back from some performance decline and off the field problems. I actually mentioned him as a possibility back in the 2014 FA Arms thread (#27) due to the fact he was represented by Baleo. Interesting that it may not actually have been that far off as a possibility.

 

Well at least we can be glad Balelo decided to sell us on Garza instead of settling for Vargas.

[danzig6767]

Really interesting interview.

 

That interview just confirmed what i've long thought, that Attanasio was the main driver of signing Loshe.

 

It also jives with other interviews after Garza was signed and he mentioned Fangraghs multiple times, that Attanasio pays pretty close attention now to the analytics side of baseball which is good to hear.

[HiAndTight]

Regardless, I saw a lot of predictions(and do every year) that the Brewers could only spend 80 or 85 million and they're once again blowing those figures out of the water.

Please quote your source.

 

 

 

You don't think perhaps you're being a little bit intellectually dishonest here? You really expect me to pour through the threads going back to the end of last season through the first couple months of the off-season and cite the NUMEROUS comments where people were talking about how our budget was in the low to mid 80's?

 

Hell, there was literally a signature someone had where I said I thought the Brewers were capable of spending closer to 110 than 80 million in a thread in which I had this exact discussion.

[HiAndTight]

3.4 billion dollars from the Dodgers deal goes into revenue sharing. 34 percent of these teams deals do in many cases. So..I'm pretty sure I'd call that a large chunk.

 

 

I just never heard this (34%?). I just tried searching, but couldn't find anything that talked about how much teams share from their TV contracts. So, I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I found this article from 2012 that states: "The money from each team’s local TV deal is mostly kept by the team. "

 

http://www.letsgotribe.com/cleveland_indians_2012_2013_offseason/2012/10/31/3581100/new-mlb-tv-contracts-to-impact-salaries

 

Money may be "pouring into MLB", but that doesn't mean that every team is reaping the same benefits. I think it means that the rich are getting richer and are driving up the prices for FAs. Even if High and Tight is correct (and I don't think he is) and that "34% of TV deals get shared in many cases". That would mean that out of the $340 million per year that the Dodgers are getting, $115 million goes to revenue sharing. Let's say that there are 25 teams that share equally in the revenue sharing money. I'm not sure if that is anywhere close to the truth, but for argument sake that means the Brewers would get about $4.6 million of that...enough to pay for K-Rod and couple of pre-arb guys. Not really what I consider a "huge chunk". Meanwhile LA still has an extra $225 million per year on their TV contract alone which I'm guessing is 8-10 times the amount of TV contracts for teams like the Brewers, Pirates, and Royals.

 

 

 

The Dodgers were ONE singular example. The Angels, the Rangers, all these teams signing huge deals are paying about a third of it into revenue sharing that gets distributed. And it's Selig has had slow progressively increasing revenue sharing since the last CBA.

 

The Brewers are getting a whole heck of a lot more than 4.6 million dollars from other teams local TV deals. So it may not be a huge chunk because you're making assumptions that aren't true(More than 1 team is paying in and 25 teams aren't receiving the money).

[brewmann04]

Tv deal is through 2020 we have a long wait till a new deal came be reworked.

[monty57]

It's a little more nuanced. Your farm system is currency for trades.

 

And with that mentality, we somehow have one of the worst farm systems in baseball. Go figure.

 

I met with Doug afterward and said, "We've got to get one of these pitchers. We can't just go through a season like this." We all love this sport. What's great about this sport is that there's hope. For folks in Wisconsin . . . there's nothing nicer than spending a summer day at Miller Park. But if you know that there is just no chance you're going to win, that is not OK with me. I was very concerned. I wasn't kidding myself to think if we get Kyle Lohse, it's going to change things. I just had to bring up the quality of the product we were giving our fan base.

 

So yes, the Lohse trade was made to make the team slightly better in order to get fans to the ballpark, and no, I don't ever see him admitting that the best thing is to take a step backward in order to take two or three steps forward. Attanasio has done a lot to increase revenue streams, and he seems like a genuinely nice guy, but I don't think I'll ever agree with the way he builds a franchise. Where we are (hopeful that if everything goes right we could sneak into a Wildcard spot) is better than where the Brewers have been through most of the team's history, but we'll never be modeled after teams like the Cardinals, Rays and others who can sustain success and vie for division titles every year without bottomless pockets.

 

One of the things that draws me to baseball is the ability to look at the entire franchise and "play GM" to see where things will be in the future. In order to remain a Brewer fan, I have to stop doing that and just look at the MLB team and hope for the best on a year-to-year basis.

[logan82]

Regardless, I saw a lot of predictions(and do every year) that the Brewers could only spend 80 or 85 million and they're once again blowing those figures out of the water.

Please quote your source.

 

 

 

You don't think perhaps you're being a little bit intellectually dishonest here?

Not really. Where did you see people talking about a payroll under $90m? I think you are thinking about the 2012 offseason.

Hell, there was literally a signature someone had where I said I thought the Brewers were capable of spending closer to 110 than 80 million in a thread in which I had this exact discussion.

Timing is everything. If you had said the same thing this offseason you might be right.

Posted: August 08, 2012, 2:16 AM

HiAndTight Said:

But I'll bet the Brewers end up with a payroll closer to 115 than to 80 million next year. AGain, despite it not being what I think is best for the team.

 

Value of Contracts for 2013 Season - $83.9M

[logan82]

I started walking away and I said, "Well, anybody else?" I literally started walking away. He said, "Matt Garza." I spun around and said, "How about Matt Garza?" He told me generically what kind of situation Matt was looking for.

 

Well, (manager Ron) Roenicke was there. I walked over to him, sat down and said, "Ron, how about Matt Garza?" He goes, "Yeah!" So the next morning, I called Doug and said, "How about Matt Garza?" Doug's first question was, "Isn't he too expensive?"

This bugs me a lot. I hate how involved Mark A. is with the team. I don't see that changing either. On the other hand, Melvin didn't even inquire about Garza or was this a case where he didn't really think we needed starting pitching?

[Crew2323]

I started walking away and I said, "Well, anybody else?" I literally started walking away. He said, "Matt Garza." I spun around and said, "How about Matt Garza?" He told me generically what kind of situation Matt was looking for.

 

Well, (manager Ron) Roenicke was there. I walked over to him, sat down and said, "Ron, how about Matt Garza?" He goes, "Yeah!" So the next morning, I called Doug and said, "How about Matt Garza?" Doug's first question was, "Isn't he too expensive?"

This bugs me a lot. I hate how involved Mark A. is with the team. I don't see that changing either. On the other hand, Melvin didn't even inquire about Garza or was this a case where he didn't really think we needed starting pitching?

 

Based on Mark A's quote of Melvin, I think it's a case of Melvin assuming Garza was well out of the Brewers price range, not that the team didn't need starting pitching. Whether Melvin's assumption was based on previous contact with Garza's representatives or simply a gut feeling is another story.

[TooLiveBrew]

I started walking away and I said, "Well, anybody else?" I literally started walking away. He said, "Matt Garza." I spun around and said, "How about Matt Garza?" He told me generically what kind of situation Matt was looking for.

 

Well, (manager Ron) Roenicke was there. I walked over to him, sat down and said, "Ron, how about Matt Garza?" He goes, "Yeah!" So the next morning, I called Doug and said, "How about Matt Garza?" Doug's first question was, "Isn't he too expensive?"

This bugs me a lot. I hate how involved Mark A. is with the team. I don't see that changing either. On the other hand, Melvin didn't even inquire about Garza or was this a case where he didn't really think we needed starting pitching?

 

Based on Mark A's quote of Melvin, I think it's a case of Melvin assuming Garza was well out of the Brewers price range, not that the team didn't need starting pitching. Whether Melvin's assumption was based on previous contact with Garza's representatives or simply a gut feeling is another story.

This whole situation is really troubling to me, if our assumptions are correct. How can a GM make the call that a player is too expensive without bothering to consult with the pocketbook-holder?

[RobDeer 45]

This whole situation is really troubling to me, if our assumptions are correct. How can a GM make the call that a player is too expensive without bothering to consult with the pocketbook-holder?

 

I read that as, DM had a budget to stick to so he didn't inquire much more than his normal homework on Garza. Then Mark A got excited and called Doug and said, what do you think of Garza, is he the type of player we would want? If he is, I'm willing to go over our original budget.

 

Kind of like a dad shoe shopping with his kid. Dad goes, "what you think of these Jordans?" Kid says, "well they are over $80 dollars, so didn't think I could get them." Dad says, "well they are pretty sweet, don't tell mom!"

[torts]

Regardless, I saw a lot of predictions(and do every year) that the Brewers could only spend 80 or 85 million and they're once again blowing those figures out of the water.

Please quote your source.

 

You don't think perhaps you're being a little bit intellectually dishonest here? You really expect me to pour through the threads going back to the end of last season through the first couple months of the off-season and cite the NUMEROUS comments where people were talking about how our budget was in the low to mid 80's?

 

Hell, there was literally a signature someone had where I said I thought the Brewers were capable of spending closer to 110 than 80 million in a thread in which I had this exact discussion.

 

the argument in that thread was you were set that the brewers were going to break 100 million in 2013, and a lot of us said they were gunna float around 80, and so I wouldnt forget, I quoted you in my signature. it had nothing to do with where the team was going to be a couple years later

[TheCrew07]

This whole situation is really troubling to me, if our assumptions are correct. How can a GM make the call that a player is too expensive without bothering to consult with the pocketbook-holder?

 

I find the entire situation troubling, it's "fly by the seat of your pants" management all the way up the chain, there doesn't seem to be a long-term philosophy in place at all. The game plan seems to simply be that the Brewers are buyers unless there is absolutely no hope at the trade deadline, then they will sell off a player or 2 who happens to be approaching FA.

 

They've been pretty fortunate with these happy accidents like Aoki, Lohse, and Garza. Even though I don't necessarily agree with the strategy I would at least feel better about it if the players were targeted and always part of the plan rather than a result of fortunate circumstances.

 

I wonder if these random encounters led to the signings of guys like Looper, Ramirez, Wolf, Riske, and so on as well? We already knew Mark A was heavily involved in the Suppan signing...

[monty57]

This whole situation is really troubling to me, if our assumptions are correct. How can a GM make the call that a player is too expensive without bothering to consult with the pocketbook-holder?

 

I read that as, DM had a budget to stick to so he didn't inquire much more than his normal homework on Garza. Then Mark A got excited and called Doug and said, what do you think of Garza, is he the type of player we would want? If he is, I'm willing to go over our original budget.

 

Kind of like a dad shoe shopping with his kid. Dad goes, "what you think of these Jordans?" Kid says, "well they are over $80 dollars, so didn't think I could get them." Dad says, "well they are pretty sweet, don't tell mom!"

 

Yeah, I think Melvin had a budget and was sticking to it. I think agents (being salesmen) realize that if they schmooze Attanasio directly, they can get him to sign their player to the deal they want. That whole story sounds like the agent was "playing" Attanasio... as he's ordering me up a few double scotch's, we were talking about some nobody reliever who I would never care about as owner, then suddenly as I was walking away he blurted out "Matt Garza." I went over and asked Roenicke if he'd want Garza, and he wet himself, so I called Melvin and told him to forget about the budget and to get the deal done.

 

I wonder if agents with a "B talent" free agent even bother calling Melvin anymore, or if they just go straight to Attanasio. Your analogy is on target, because "dad" is the one who sees the shiny object and can't help himself, while "son" is the one with restraint who just shakes his head and says "okay" when the money flows. Meanwhile, in Attanasio's own words, he signed a guy at a position where he had "20 guys for 12 spots who have pitched well at the major-league level" while leaving a black hole at 1B, question marks at 2B and LF (I like Davis, but he's still a question mark), a pretty poor bench, no depth at most positions and one of the worst farms in baseball.

[MJLiverock]

Or it simply means Melvin has a budget or limit to work within, if he wants to go over it or the opportunity to do so arises he has to talk with the owner since that is where the extra money will come from. Or he can sign any contract up to X guaranteed dollars and over that he has to go to Mark A. It is a fairly simple and common business practice. I worked in a bank years ago and could give a loan of up to $1MM with my signature and no further approval. Sure after the fact I had to present it and defend it if it went bad but up to a $1MM it was my call. If a company needed more than $1MM, I had to go to my boss and get his signature too.

[logan82]

But he didn't go to Mark. Mark went to him.

[DoubleSwitch]

A lot of people here are taking a couple comments and reading into them whatever they want to believe about how the Brewers are run. I don't see how the Garza deal harms the future of the club significantly. There's a dominant school of thought among analytic types that you should strive to to win either 60 games or 90+ and there is no use in being anywhere in between. I think this is misguided for couple of reasons. First there is value in attracting and maintaining a fanbase. There's money from folks coming through the turnstiles, and a decade+ of strong ratings could mean a significant chunk of change when it comes time to renegotiate the TV deal 5 years from now. Money is important to building a winning team. Of course we can't see the books, so it's hard to say exactly what's the difference between 3 or 4 years of 35,000/game attendance vs. 25,000/game attendance. However, I think it's safe to say that Mark's made enough money to know what he's doing, and also that he isn't rich enough to hemorrhage cash recklessly. Next season, assuming no Weeks, a buyout on ARAM and exercising the option on Gallardo They have 65 million in guaranteed contracts with Marco Estrada the only player who will make significant money in arbitration. The payroll flexibility is there and there's really no bad money on the books, so I think its extreme to say the team has thrown away money recklessly.

 

Second, we have to talk about what it means to rebuild. The traditional rebuild that some folks have been calling for at least 2 years here would have involved dealing this offseason at least Weeks, ARam, Gallardo, Lohse, and maybe a reliever or two. Of course it's simple to say trade them and get back some young studs when you have no idea what anyone would offer. Lets take a look at vets for prospects trades this off-season.

 

>Dexter Fowler for Jordan Lyles and Brandon Barnes. Say what you will about his home-road splits, but Fowler offers above average offense and base-running at a premium position, and he goes for a bust prospect looking for a fresh start and an outfielder his same age with no major league production or prospect pedigree.

 

>The Diamondbacks give up Skaggs, and Eaton for Trumbo. Ok that was a total steal, but nobody is as dumb as Kevin Towers.

 

>Doug Fister goes for Ian Knol, Steve Lombardozzi, and Robbie Ray. I think we can all agree that two years of Fister is worth more than two years of Gallardo or two years of Lohse by a significant margin, and he goes for a B-/C+ SP prospect, a backup infielder and a relief pitcher.

 

>Athletics give up Seth Smith for Luke Gregerson and Jemille Weeks for Jim Johnson. Both more valuable than any of our relievers. One goes for a .750 OPS guy who plays bad corner outfield defense, the other for a .750 OPS guy who plays bad defense...in AAA

 

>Brewers send Aoki to KC for Will Smith. Hey, I actually like this one.

 

I think it's clear that teams are not giving up their impact prospects like they used to. I think you'd be lucky to get a top 100 prospect back for any one of those guys. Plus Weeks and ARam are sell low guys without much value at all besides salary relief that we don't need. This team is not a bottom feeder, and trading away enough vets to make us a bottom feeder isn't worth it. Here's an interesting look at value in the draft: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/draft_picks_and.php Picking in the first couple spots is worth quite a bit, but the difference between picking 8th or 28th is only a couple WAR over the lifetime of a player.

 

Clearly the Brewers have not developed a big time prospect for some time. Is this bad scouting? bad coaching? or just bad luck? I don't think we have enough information here to say for sure. People blame Melvin for blowing the farm on trades, but Escobar, Lawrie, Brantley, and Odarizzi? All nice players, but I can't say DM has made a real bone-headed trade for quite some time, and the Greinke and Aoki sales were solid. Lawrie/Marcum is the worst, but Lawrie's 2011 in the minors and majors is looking more like an anomaly making him 'solid regular' instead of 'future star' like we all feared for a bit. You've gotta give some credit for some unsung guys. Lucroy has developed into an impact player, and depending on how much stock you put into pitch receiving he could be one of the best catchers in baseball. I think Wily has the ability to be an impact player too. Outside of that they've developed Kh. Davis, Gennett, Nelson, Thornburg, Schafer, Gindl, and Fiers. None of those guys are stars, and there is no big time pedigree there, but all are contributors. If you told the average bfan poster two years ago that this team would spend the next two years continuing to 'go for it' for the most part they would probably envision a team in a lot worse shape than the one that that sits before us. I used a bunch of words there to say, basically, maybe Mark and Doug are only kinda dumb, and not complete and utter idiots like many here believe.

[logan82]

I don't think they have been reckless with money. They have been reckless with prospects. The Garza deal doesn't hurt them. The Lohse deal did and still does.

[DoubleSwitch]

I honestly think that the value of a mid to late first round pick is being overstated by many, and some of these comp free agents are real bargains. I think Stephen Drew will be lucky to get 3/30, compared to 4/53 for Jhonny Peralta. Without even going into PED stuff, Drew is a year younger, and an equal if not better player. Is the 27th pick worth that disparity? The Brewers gave up a pick that's historically worth about 4-5 WAR for an entire career for a guy who gave you half that in one season. I don't know how exactly one would go about applying the time value of money to WAR, but certainly a win now is worth more than a win 5 years from now. Not to say they should make a habit of throwing them away, but losing a mid to late first round pick is not the end of the world. They certainly haven't been putting them to good use for some time now anyway. They've got 3 of the first 51 picks this year so fingers crossed.

[Eye Black]

I find the entire situation troubling, it's "fly by the seat of your pants" management all the way up the chain, there doesn't seem to be a long-term philosophy in place at all. The game plan seems to simply be that the Brewers are buyers unless there is absolutely no hope at the trade deadline, then they will sell off a player or 2 who happens to be approaching FA.

 

They've been pretty fortunate with these happy accidents like Aoki, Lohse, and Garza. Even though I don't necessarily agree with the strategy I would at least feel better about it if the players were targeted and always part of the plan rather than a result of fortunate circumstances.

 

I wonder if these random encounters led to the signings of guys like Looper, Ramirez, Wolf, Riske, and so on as well? We already knew Mark A was heavily involved in the Suppan signing...

 

I agree that some of these transactions make me feel like the Brewers are playing Roulette instead of Black Jack. There just seems to be a lack of strategy involved with cultivating off-season targets. I have always pictured both trade and free agent targets as being part of a formulated plan that incorporates hundreds of hours of scouting analysis with cutting edge analytical data that is so advance we don't even know about it yet. But some of these accounts given by Attanasio feel more like scenes straight out of the show Arliss.

[monty57]

I don't think Melvin or Attanasio are dumb. I think they had a good franchise and then decided to give themselves the best chance to win in a "window," which is designed to sacrifice future for present. Many believe that this is the only chance for a small market team to win, but the success of teams like the Rays, Twins (under Terry Ryan), A's, Cardinals, etc would seem to have busted that myth. I would rather see them try to build a franchise for the long-run rather than for a "window."

 

Since then, it seems that Melvin has tried to show restraint and get the franchise back in order, but Attanasio has kept pushing for a big name signing each offseason. I think this is done more to keep fans coming to games than it is done to win games/make the playoffs. That's a valid business strategy as the team needs revenue, but my personal preference is to do what will most likely lead to a continually successful franchise.

 

As to the success of the free agent signings, first they can't be done in a vacuum. If the player "lives up to" his contract, but the team still stinks, is it worth the money spent, or would they have been better off going another route? Secondly, the signings can't be judged until the contract is played out. I figured Ramirez and Lohse would do well in their first season, but worried age could catch up with them.

 

All in all, I'm sure Attanasio and Melvin want the best for the Brewers. On multiple occasions, they've said something like "you have to weigh the present with the future and sometimes you have to give up some of the future to make the present better." I just wish the reverse of that would be acted on a little more often.

[logan82]

St. Louis isn't a much bigger market than the Brewers or spending a ton more. It just seems like they are.

[DoubleSwitch]

Keep in mind that Mark A. very much wants to be seen as a guy who cares about the ball club he puts on the field, and is willing to spend what it takes to win. After decades of ownership that was neither of those things this makes good business sense, but also he also strikes me as someone who personally wants to be a well liked member of the community. How Mark tells the story to reporters, and the manner in which things actually went down aren't necessarily one and the same. Someone who is more tuned into to the management side of the game might read this and see someone a little out of his depth making a brash decision, however I bet your casual fan finds this type of thing endearing.

[Warning Track Power]

A lot of people here are taking a couple comments and reading into them whatever they want to believe about how the Brewers are run. I don't see how the Garza deal harms the future of the club significantly. There's a dominant school of thought among analytic types that you should strive to to win either 60 games or 90+ and there is no use in being anywhere in between. I think this is misguided for couple of reasons. First there is value in attracting and maintaining a fanbase. There's money from folks coming through the turnstiles, and a decade+ of strong ratings could mean a significant chunk of change when it comes time to renegotiate the TV deal 5 years from now. Money is important to building a winning team. Of course we can't see the books, so it's hard to say exactly what's the difference between 3 or 4 years of 35,000/game attendance vs. 25,000/game attendance. However, I think it's safe to say that Mark's made enough money to know what he's doing, and also that he isn't rich enough to hemorrhage cash recklessly. Next season, assuming no Weeks, a buyout on ARAM and exercising the option on Gallardo They have 65 million in guaranteed contracts with Marco Estrada the only player who will make significant money in arbitration. The payroll flexibility is there and there's really no bad money on the books, so I think its extreme to say the team has thrown away money recklessly.

 

Second, we have to talk about what it means to rebuild. The traditional rebuild that some folks have been calling for at least 2 years here would have involved dealing this offseason at least Weeks, ARam, Gallardo, Lohse, and maybe a reliever or two. Of course it's simple to say trade them and get back some young studs when you have no idea what anyone would offer. Lets take a look at vets for prospects trades this off-season.

 

>Dexter Fowler for Jordan Lyles and Brandon Barnes. Say what you will about his home-road splits, but Fowler offers above average offense and base-running at a premium position, and he goes for a bust prospect looking for a fresh start and an outfielder his same age with no major league production or prospect pedigree.

 

>The Diamondbacks give up Skaggs, and Eaton for Trumbo. Ok that was a total steal, but nobody is as dumb as Kevin Towers.

 

>Doug Fister goes for Ian Knol, Steve Lombardozzi, and Robbie Ray. I think we can all agree that two years of Fister is worth more than two years of Gallardo or two years of Lohse by a significant margin, and he goes for a B-/C+ SP prospect, a backup infielder and a relief pitcher.

 

>Athletics give up Seth Smith for Luke Gregerson and Jemille Weeks for Jim Johnson. Both more valuable than any of our relievers. One goes for a .750 OPS guy who plays bad corner outfield defense, the other for a .750 OPS guy who plays bad defense...in AAA

 

>Brewers send Aoki to KC for Will Smith. Hey, I actually like this one.

 

I think it's clear that teams are not giving up their impact prospects like they used to. I think you'd be lucky to get a top 100 prospect back for any one of those guys. Plus Weeks and ARam are sell low guys without much value at all besides salary relief that we don't need. This team is not a bottom feeder, and trading away enough vets to make us a bottom feeder isn't worth it. Here's an interesting look at value in the draft: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/draft_picks_and.php Picking in the first couple spots is worth quite a bit, but the difference between picking 8th or 28th is only a couple WAR over the lifetime of a player.

 

Clearly the Brewers have not developed a big time prospect for some time. Is this bad scouting? bad coaching? or just bad luck? I don't think we have enough information here to say for sure. People blame Melvin for blowing the farm on trades, but Escobar, Lawrie, Brantley, and Odarizzi? All nice players, but I can't say DM has made a real bone-headed trade for quite some time, and the Greinke and Aoki sales were solid. Lawrie/Marcum is the worst, but Lawrie's 2011 in the minors and majors is looking more like an anomaly making him 'solid regular' instead of 'future star' like we all feared for a bit. You've gotta give some credit for some unsung guys. Lucroy has developed into an impact player, and depending on how much stock you put into pitch receiving he could be one of the best catchers in baseball. I think Wily has the ability to be an impact player too. Outside of that they've developed Kh. Davis, Gennett, Nelson, Thornburg, Schafer, Gindl, and Fiers. None of those guys are stars, and there is no big time pedigree there, but all are contributors. If you told the average bfan poster two years ago that this team would spend the next two years continuing to 'go for it' for the most part they would probably envision a team in a lot worse shape than the one that that sits before us. I used a bunch of words there to say, basically, maybe Mark and Doug are only kinda dumb, and not complete and utter idiots like many here believe.

This is an excellent post...