Francisco's Locker Cleared Out. Traded? Released? Update 3/24: Released

[pete]

I just don't see Overbay riding the pine as much as you guys think. If he does one downside is he'll probably be Roenicke's go to guy for pinch hits given (insert your choice of cliche here).

 

And if he does and they burn the roster spot for that, its compounded by the way 2B is handled. I keep telling myself that its to move Weeks eventually and its not just because I'm not a fan. If they're all charged up thinking this is finally the year and they're screwing around with plate appearances, I hope he files a grievance and wins. They have a very capable backup to 2B already. If they're not marketing Weeks, send Gennett to AAA.

[monty57]

I just don't see Overbay riding the pine as much as you guys think.

 

I agree. I'm okay with Reynolds at 1B, but it will probably be more of a platoon situation, so Overbay will get tons of PAs. It's possible that Reynolds could be an .800 OPS guy, while Overbay won't come near that, but when given the choice between "that guy who strikes out all the time" and "the guy who's got experience," I think Roenicke will favor the latter, even if it's not even the case. I think Overbay at this stage will strike out nearly as much as Reynolds with none of the upside.

[SoupTown]

Weeks can hardly file a grievance that he is not gifted 600 PA

 

I will be flabbergasted my entire life that it took Doug and RRR watching all of 2013 to realise that first base was a problem in 2013. What they have now in 2014 was easily achievable with a bit of effort in earl 2013. To actually think our brains trust thought backup shortstops and catchers was a 'solution' is flabbergastering. And they admit their dumbness by their complete tack change in 2014

 

Dare we guess what the 'unseen' 2014 will be that will attract all focus of 2015

[The stache]

Mark Reynolds and Lyle Overbay are our first basemen?

 

Sigh. God, I really miss Prince Fielder.

[monty57]

I will be flabbergasted my entire life that it took Doug and RRR watching all of 2013 to realise that first base was a problem in 2013.

 

I'm flabbergasted that when Fielder repeatedly turned down their contract extension offers early in his tenure with the Brewers that they did not start planning for the future at first base then. The best time to address problems is before they happen.

[djoctagone]

I'm flabbergasted that when Fielder repeatedly turned down their contract extension offers early in his tenure with the Brewers that they did not start planning for the future at first base then. The best time to address problems is before they happen.

nobody could have predicted corey hart, mat gamel and taylor green all missing the entire 2013 season with injuries. all of those guys were either established big leaguers or promising prospects at that time. plan for any more depth than that at a single position, and you've created a log jam (plus holes at other positions).

[monty57]

I'm flabbergasted that when Fielder repeatedly turned down their contract extension offers early in his tenure with the Brewers that they did not start planning for the future at first base then. The best time to address problems is before they happen.

nobody could have predicted corey hart, mat gamel and taylor green all missing the entire 2013 season with injuries. all of those guys were either established big leaguers or promising prospects at that time. plan for any more depth than that at a single position, and you've created a log jam (plus holes at other positions).

 

I was really going for a scenario where they would have had his replacement by his first or second year of arbitration so they could have traded Fielder with 2-3 years of service time for a king's ransom that could help the team for years. I don't really get into the year-to-year find a hole and patch it through free agency theory the Brewers use.

[brewerfan82]

I was really going for a scenario where they would have had his replacement by his first or second year of arbitration so they could have traded Fielder with 2-3 years of service time for a king's ransom that could help the team for years. I don't really get into the year-to-year find a hole and patch it through free agency theory the Brewers use.

 

I think you have to consider that the Brewers had a group of highly touted prospects reaching their primes at that time as well though. The timing was right to make a playoff push in those years and you don't do that by trading away one of your key pieces for minor leaguers, especially when you're a team that doesn't have the finances/appeal to fill that hole through free agency. I agree that under different circumstances (ie. no realistic shot at the playoffs for the duration of his contract), trading Fielder for prospects that could create a situation in the future "to go for it" would make sense. But they were already in position "to go for it". It's hard to continually trade for the future and ever get there.

[monty57]

I was really going for a scenario where they would have had his replacement by his first or second year of arbitration so they could have traded Fielder with 2-3 years of service time for a king's ransom that could help the team for years. I don't really get into the year-to-year find a hole and patch it through free agency theory the Brewers use.

 

I think you have to consider that the Brewers had a group of highly touted prospects reaching their primes at that time as well though. The timing was right to make a playoff push in those years and you don't do that by trading away one of your key pieces for minor leaguers, especially when you're a team that doesn't have the finances/appeal to fill that hole through free agency. I agree that under different circumstances (ie. no realistic shot at the playoffs for the duration of his contract), trading Fielder for prospects that could create a situation in the future "to go for it" would make sense. But they were already in position "to go for it". It's hard to continually trade for the future and ever get there.

 

Unfortunately, not having the financial resources is exactly why they have to do things like that. For teams willing to suffer the angst of the fans who get upset at a "name player" being traded away, it's really the only strategy that has worked for small market teams to maintain success over time. Not doing it leads to teams being really bad, then being good for a few seasons and then being bad again.

 

No one knows exactly what would've happened, so it's all theoretical, but we got one playoff appearance by holding on to Fielder, and have been horrible since. I think there's a good chance we could have had more success by trading him than we had by not trading him. Really, that one decision led to pretty much all of the future decisions, and changed us from being a team built around talented, young, inexpensive players to a team built around expensive, aging players. When you don't have as much money as your competition, I think that's a losing strategy.

[brewerfan82]

No one knows exactly what would've happened, so it's all theoretical, but we got one playoff appearance by holding on to Fielder, and have been horrible since. I think there's a good chance we could have had more success by trading him than we had by not trading him. Really, that one decision led to pretty much all of the future decisions, and changed us from being a team built around talented, young, inexpensive players to a team built around expensive, aging players. When you don't have as much money as your competition, I think that's a losing strategy.

 

Ha, "horrible" is a stretch, I'll take the past few years over what we endured in the 90's/early 2000's. I guess it's a difference in opinion. I think constantly trading name players for long-term success, under all circumstances, is a recipe for being just above mediocrity when you don't have the finances to replace them. However, if you can stock pile young, cheap talent in waves that allow you to then add/keep big pieces on the up swing of those waves to get you over the top, you have a much more realistic chance of occasional success. I think that's just a more realistic model for low-to-mid market teams. Then again, maybe I just see anything that doesn't lead to 20 years of ineptitude as a positive strategy now, lol. I'll take the smaller swings in success if I get to see Brewer playoff games more frequently that way.

[logan82]

Ha, "horrible" is a stretch, I guess it's a difference in opinion.

153-167, yup pretty bad. Long term the team looks bad too.

 

I'll take the past few years over what we endured in the 90's/early 2000's.

Who wouldn't but just because the team doesn't seem to be intentionally run into the ground doesn't mean it is good.

 

I think constantly trading name players for long-term success, under all circumstances, is a recipe for being just above mediocrity when you don't have the finances to replace them.

The way the team is currently running is a recipe for mediocrity.

 

However, if you can stock pile young, cheap talent in waves that allow you to then add/keep big pieces on the up swing of those waves to get you over the top, you have a much more realistic chance of occasional success.

Of course you do. The current management is just doing a poor job recognizing when we are no longer on an upswing.

[brewerfan82]

First off, the past two seasons they've been 157-167, 19th in MLB, 9th in NL. Not good, but not what I would call "horrible".

 

There's definitely a debate of whether or not the team should be going for it or not currently, as you could definitely expect a down swing to begin with the departure of Fielder, and that's the expected result of the "go for it" in waves approach. However, the suggestion of trading Fielder with 2-3 years left on his contract would have placed them directly in the most "upswing" time in recent Brewer history. I can't blame them for holding onto him when they thought they had the best chance to make the playoffs. Trading him then would have probably insured we didn't make the playoffs and we'd be waiting for the haul we got for him to make the majors before we had another chance of going for it.

[logan82]

Trading him about the same time they traded JJ Hardy would have probably packed more talent into 2011 and beyond. If we get a good pitcher for Fielder it doesn't necessitate the trades for either Greinke or Marcum. We get different or better long term players back for the guys we traded.

[monty57]

I think the Brewers really bad history is the reason many are happy with getting to two playoffs with no World Series appearances, even if it cost the team "future value." What's ironic is that many Brewer fans are also Packer fans, and as Packer fans, they would not accept it if the team gave up their future for two playoff appearances in five years. I'd just like the Brewers to be run more like Thompson runs the Packers. Make the moves that are best for the future of the franchise, even if the fans boo you. They'll come around when the team wins.

 

I also lived through many bad seasons with the Brewers, but to me that's why I'm upset with what has happened in the recent years. Dean Taylor started turning the team around by taking the focus off the MLB team and focusing on the farm. Melvin took over and continued this strategy. I live near Beloit, so I got to watch these kids play, and got really excited. Even though they had one of the worst MLB teams in club history, I could see that brighter times were ahead. Then these guys hit the majors, they started to win, and the fans loved them. Had they followed the model teams like the Rays, A's and Ryan's Twins have used successfully, I figured they had a chance to be a continually good team for the foreseeable future.

 

But, as we all know, teams only "control" a player for six seasons. Braun had already extended, but Fielder wouldn't extend, so rather than trade him (and probably others), the Brewers decided that they had to do anything they could, regardless of future consequences, to win in the "window" that they had Fielder. That got us a second playoff appearance, and since then the Brewer PR machine has been doing everything possible to keep fans believing that we are still a playoff team. Really, we're a team that could make the playoffs if everything went right, which really could be said about every team but the Astros. What makes things worse is that while we're on our downward slope, every other team in the division is heading upward, making last place finishes look like they'll be the norm for quite a while.

 

That's why I get frustrated.

[brewerfan82]

I guess I just don't have the faith that enough of that return (plus the Lawries, Cains, Escobars, etc.) would hit to make up for not having Fielder (95 R, 38 HR, 120 RBI, .299/.415/.566/.981), Greinke (16-6, 3.83, 1.20, 201 K), and Marcum (13-7, 3.54, 1.16, 158 K) that season. I would assume if they thought they could get that kind of return with any sort of certainty they would have done it. That said, it definitely would have left us with more talent in the system going forward (although you could argue Segura's the best of what we would have ended up with anyways). However, my belief remains that at some point you need to decide your current base is good enough to go with proven talent for awhile and try to make a playoff push. At the time our base group was at that level. If we had traded away pieces we would have been gambling away our chances both then and in the future that we would have talent at the major league level that could succeed. When you don't have the talent at the major league level to succeed (questionably now, but I think we're still a year or two from re-hauling, as I'd take a chance with this team still), that's when you trade your players for a chance down the road.

 

I haven't been disappointed with the results of the current regime so far and until I am I don't have reason to believe they won't shift the direction of the team when they need to. If the team shows they can't compete in the first half of the season, maybe they trade ARam, Gallardo, Lohse, etc. and all of a sudden the future doesn't look so bleak. It's all about the timing and what you're gambling away when you make the move. It's all balancing proven commodities (and how valuable that is for the current status of the major league team) with uncertain potential.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Had they followed the model teams like the Rays, A's and Ryan's Twins have used successfully, I figured they had a chance to be a continually good team for the foreseeable future.

 

If winning a world series championship is the ultimate goal, then the Rays, A's and Ryan's Twins model doesn't work, either. The Marlins model is actually more effective.

 

If we get a good pitcher for Fielder it doesn't necessitate the trades for either Greinke or Marcum. We get different or better long term players back for the guys we traded.

 

If's and but's...and hindsight's always 20/20. If I recall the market wasn't really that robust for trading Prince prior to 2011 - his 2010 season of OPS'ing 0.871 didn't help his market value. Had the Brewers tried to deal him after 2009, they probably could've gotten the best value. However, trading your best player in his prime with 2 full seasons of team control remaining is a tough pill for any organization to swallow. The Rays or A's don't do that. The Cardinals, everyone's model for how to run an organization today, let Pujols play out his contract and walk. The could've traded him for twice the value Fielder could've gotten. The glaring discrepancy with how the Brewers have been doing business in recent years and the perceived 'Rays/A's model' is that the Brewers haven't been able to keep the talent pipeline from the farm system flowing. Poor drafts and likely poor scouting/player development are the problem, not a lack of trading big league players.

 

Segura is here because the Brewers traded Greinke. Coulter and Haniger were drafted from picks given to the Brewers for losing Fielder to free agency. Had there been better prospects in the pipeline prior to Fielder leaving, we wouldn't be having this discussion about the problems at 1B.

[MJLiverock]

If the Brewers were "horrible" the last 2 seasons at 157-167 what were the Twins and their great method of team building? The were 132-192 in that span. The last 3 years the Brewers trounced the Twins record with 253 wins compared to 195 for the Twins. Even on a 5 year plan the Brewers have outpaced the Twins 410 wins to 376. I just don't see the Twins as having done something right other than be bad and have a few years of top picks.

[Thurston Fluff]

Trading him about the same time they traded JJ Hardy would have probably packed more talent into 2011 and beyond. If we get a good pitcher for Fielder it doesn't necessitate the trades for either Greinke or Marcum. We get different or better long term players back for the guys we traded.

 

I get the idea of trading at peak value but I don't think you trade legit MVP type guys just because you can get the most for them at that point. Realistically the best you can hope for is someone as good for a few more years. Yet they will have their best value with a few years left on their contract. To me that means the best you can hope for production wise is to break even. If you get Matt LaPorta instead of Jean Segura you don't even do that.

[topper09er]

last year at 1B the following players over 162 games hit .206/.259/.370:

Francisco-62

Betancourt-46

Halton-19

Gonzalez-16

Lucroy-9

Maldonado-7

Lalli-3

 

 

This .629 OPS is the worst in Brewer history for the 1B position in any season. By a large margin:

 

                            
Rk   Tm  Split Year   G  OPS
1    MIL as 1B 2013 162 .629
2    MIL as 1B 1988 162 .681
3    MIL as 1B 1986 161 .682
4    MIL as 1B 1984 161 .699
5    MIL as 1B 1970 163 .711
6    MIL as 1B 1989 162 .713
7    MIL as 1B 1999 161 .719
8    MIL as 1B 1997 161 .732
9    MIL as 1B 1971 161 .734
10   MIL as 1B 1976 161 .739

 

For our division:

Worst ever 1B season OPS since 1969:

StL 1988 .632

CIN 1986 .670

PIT 2010 .648

ChC 1973 .697

 

HOU 1981 .627

 

man it really hurt when we lost the Astros to the AL

[502 to Right]

Shouldn't we know where Francisco is going by now? He was released March 24th.

[PrinceEatMeat]

Shouldn't we know where Francisco is going by now? He was released March 24th.

 

No one picked him up. The move doesn't look so bad now, seeing as none of the other 29 teams jumped at the chance to sign him.

[ewitkows]

I'm surprised an AL team didn't pick him up to DH. If he learns to take a few more walks he'd be a pretty good DH

[TURBO]

My guess is if we dumped Overbay too, he would probably meet the same fate.

[adambr2]

I'm a bit annoyed that they had all off-season to upgrade the 1B position and if anything, they somehow managed to downgrade. It wouldn't bother me so much if they were in a rebuilding state anyway, but you spend all that money to get Garza, and then you do essentially nothing about first base.

 

Seeing that Reynolds is the best option they have, by far, he should be getting the lions share of time at 1st. If the plan is a full platoon, we are in just as bad of a spot as last year.

 

This pains me to say, because I was a big fan of his during his first stint -- but I have no idea why Overbay is on the roster. He isn't going to hit. He can't play effectively anywhere else but 1st. He has no upside at 36. So we are using a roster spot to have an aging marginal defensive first baseman?

[TURBO]

but he has veteran grittiness...