Marco Estrada 2015 and beyond

[Oxy]

As to prospects being overvalued I highly disagree. I think many teams are coming around to the idea that the marginal difference in production between prospects and middling FAs isn't worth the cost, which is something a small core of posters on this site has been trying to convince people of for a long time. Is the extra win really worth the 8 million dollar difference in salary for a season? With the Brewers relative lack of success in Free Agency posters on this site should understand this concept better than most, but every year we have the same debates about an incredibly small marginal difference in production at a spot and how this new Free Agent will be better than the last ones, this one is "the guy".

 

If this post was written in 2006, I'd agree with you.

 

Suppan, Wolf, (Sabathia, Greinke), Ramirez, Lohse, and Garza mostly disagree with this though.

 

Suppan was bad. Wolf was okay, and Garza is too early to tell. Sabathia and Greinke weren't free agent signings, but Melvin chased short term production in those deals and gave away long term prospects, so it is a similar philosophy to signing free agents.

 

All of this type of thinking was supposed to submarine the future for the Brewers. Instead, we are 20-9, with an incredibly solid young core of up the middle position players and a HOF outfielder under contract for another 5 years.

 

Our pitching staff is solid now, with a future of Peralta, Will Smith, Tyler Thornburg and Jimmy Nelson, not to mention 3-6 more combined years of Gallardo, Lohse, Garza, and Estrada which can be used or traded.

 

Quite frankly, the doom-and-gloomers who keep saying that we mortgage our future every time we sign a free agent or trade a prospect have pretty much been dead wrong. I've been hearing it for 5-6 years.

 

The funny thing is that I generally AGREE with the philosophy of building cheaply through the draft and a strong minor league system. However, when doing something a bit differently works, I'll admit that it worked and enjoy the wins .

[monty57]

However, when doing something a bit differently works, I'll admit that it worked and enjoy the wins

 

I'm enjoying the wins as well, but I'll wait a few more games before I'll print the playoff tickets for this season. They've put a lot of faith in older players and unheralded youngsters, and we've just seen a glimpse of what the team looks like with a couple of injuries. The team has started about as hot as anyone could ever have imagined, so we'll have to see how they play as the season grinds on, some players get banged up and others come back down to earth.

 

But to topic, your line of "not to mention 3-6 more combined years of Gallardo, Lohse, Garza, and Estrada which can be used or traded" will bear a lot of weight for the team's future. If they decide to hold on to Gallardo, Lohse and Estrada next season in a "go all in" move, they will probably give themselves the best chance of winning next year, but they will forego a chance of trading one for some talented youth. It seems one almost has to be traded (due to the plethora of MLB ready arms), so hopefully they will be able to find the best mix of value for the present vs value for the future and trade the right guy(s) for the right return. My choice would probably be Gallardo, as he would likely bring back the best return, but my guess is Estrada will be the one dealt, as that would seem to give them the best chance to "win now" while opening up a spot for one of the younger arms.

[HiAndTight]

However, when doing something a bit differently works, I'll admit that it worked and enjoy the wins

 

I completely agree.

 

I was against the Sabathia trade for the simple reason that I believed(still believe for that matter) that Zach Greinke was available and that we could have acquired him or another very good starting pitcher whom we controlled for multiple years as opposed to Sabathia for just 3 months. Yet when it happened, I sure as hell sat back and enjoyed the run CC went on carrying us into the playoffs.

 

When we traded Brett Lawrie, an elite prospect for Shawn Marcum, I thought the Brewers should have done a complete tear down and rebuild. Yet we then went all in, traded for Greinke and enjoyed the best year since '82.

 

Last year when we signed Lohse, and this year with Garza I was hoping we'd stay out of the FA market, give the young guys a chance, trade anyone with value at the deadline.

 

But this has been one of the most enjoyable starts to the season that I can recall.

 

 

So basically I'm done hoping the Brewers are going to go the Astro's/Cubs tear down and rebuild route. I think we're putting more resources into the farm system, into international free agents and I think we're doing a better job with our prospects. So....that's how the Brewers are choosing to operate and rather than CONSTANTLY bashing the Brewers and the way they do things, I've decided just to enjoy their success and hope that their decisions with their draft picks and free agents work out.

[danzig6767]

However, when doing something a bit differently works, I'll admit that it worked and enjoy the wins

 

It seems one almost has to be traded (due to the plethora of MLB ready arms), so hopefully they will be able to find the best mix of value for the present vs value for the future and trade the right guy(s) for the right return. My choice would probably be Gallardo, as he would likely bring back the best return, but my guess is Estrada will be the one dealt, as that would seem to give them the best chance to "win now" while opening up a spot for one of the younger arms.

 

If Estrada can make it through the whole year healthy and i'm a team looking for a veteran starter, i might rather have Maco than Gallardo unless my team played in a bandbox park like say Cincinnati plays in.

 

Even with his good start so far this year, i'm very skeptical that Gallardo can keep pitching really well. He still throws a lot of pitches outside the zone leading to many deep counts and his K rate remains on the decline. Hopefully i'm wrong, but as the team gets deeper into the season, i have a feeling that he'll

finish closer to his 4 plus ERA of last year than the sub-4 ERA numbers of the past.

[DHonks]

I'm with LouisEly and Souptown. I think prospects are overvalued in this day and age, and even more overvalued is draft picks. I'd rather have a solid big leaguer than a draft pick given the Brewers' current state. If we were a team like the Cubs, I'd feel differently. I would definitely consider moving Yo or Estrada after this season if the price is right. Thornburg, Nelson, Fiers, and Smith deserve shots at starting. The Rays model would be nice....get 3-5 years out of a starter and then move him. The key is identifying the right guys to trade for.

 

Just curious, how have the Rays done in their deals for Shields, Garza, and the others?

[jerichoholicninja]

Just curious, how have the Rays done in their deals for Shields, Garza, and the others?

 

Rays traded Brenden Harris, Jason Pridie, and Delmon Young for Garza

Rays traded Garza for Hak-Ju Lee, Chris Archer, Robinson Chirios, Sam Fuld, and Brandon Guyer.

 

Rays traded Shields for Patrick Leonard, Mike Montgomery, Wil Myers, and Jake Odorizzi.

 

Pretty substantial wins for the Rays.

[TheCrew07]

This debate is going in circles and instead of posting the same ideas again in a slightly different manner I'll leave it at this:

 

Just because a team get's "competitive" doesn't mean some magical switch flips and all of sudden the principles of roster and organization construction somehow get changed. That's the biggest fallacy in professional sports and why so many teams have cycles of extreme success and failure. I can certainly understand "face of franchise" and the nostalgia of "player for life" ideas/perspectives, when I was younger I felt the same way about the players on the teams I rooted for. I think those philosophies are relics of a bygone era, I saw Montana move on from the 49ers, Molitor from the Brewers and my perspective began to change, by the time Farve moved on from the Packers I was ready for him to go. For the most part those models don't work in modern professional sports anymore where athletes are just chasing the best contract possible in the vast majority of cases. Only a very small slice of professional franchises, all in baseball, can overpay aging and declining athletes and still manage to put a functional team around them.

 

Staying relevant isn't about a continual cycle of FA acquisitions in most sports, and certainly hasn't kept the Brewers competitive year in and year out. The Brewers have been hot but there's no way they are going to win at better than a .666 clip all year, the fact that they are 20-9 shouldn't mean anything more than if they were 9-20, doing the right thing for the long-term health of the franchise is independent of the team's record. The only true difference would be fan perception of the season so far, but a 9-20 start wouldn't mean we are destined for failure anymore than the 20-9 start means we are WS bound.

[HiAndTight]

Just curious, how have the Rays done in their deals for Shields, Garza, and the others?

 

Rays traded Brenden Harris, Jason Pridie, and Delmon Young for Garza

Rays traded Garza for Hak-Ju Lee, Chris Archer, Robinson Chirios, Sam Fuld, and Brandon Guyer.

 

Rays traded Shields for Patrick Leonard, Mike Montgomery, Wil Myers, and Jake Odorizzi.

 

Pretty substantial wins for the Rays.

 

 

Pretty substantial wins right now....and they could be enormous wins. Myers is a stud, I love Archer. Not sure how Odorizzi is going to handle the AL East and think he ends up as a long man down the road, but for the time being he's filling in for Moore and whomever else.

And there are a couple other guys they could get impact performances from.

[HiAndTight]

This debate is going in circles and instead of posting the same ideas again in a slightly different manner I'll leave it at this:

 

Just because a team get's "competitive" doesn't mean some magical switch flips and all of sudden the principles of roster and organization construction somehow get changed. That's the biggest fallacy in professional sports and why so many teams have cycles of extreme success and failure. I can certainly understand "face of franchise" and the nostalgia of "player for life" ideas/perspectives, when I was younger I felt the same way about the players on the teams I rooted for. I think those philosophies are relics of a bygone era, I saw Montana move on from the 49ers, Molitor from the Brewers and my perspective began to change, by the time Farve moved on from the Packers I was ready for him to go. For the most part those models don't work in modern professional sports anymore where athletes are just chasing the best contract possible in the vast majority of cases. Only a very small slice of professional franchises, all in baseball, can overpay aging and declining athletes and still manage to put a functional team around them.

 

Staying relevant isn't about a continual cycle of FA acquisitions in most sports, and certainly hasn't kept the Brewers competitive year in and year out. The Brewers have been hot but there's no way they are going to win at better than a .666 clip all year, the fact that they are 20-9 shouldn't mean anything more than if they were 9-20, doing the right thing for the long-term health of the franchise is independent of the team's record. The only true difference would be fan perception of the season so far, but a 9-20 start wouldn't mean we are destined for failure anymore than the 20-9 start means we are WS bound.

 

 

 

I can honestly say I'm not certain who you're arguing with here.

The face of the franchise thing is something I haven't really seen debated, and obviously players move on.

 

I don't know anyone who believes the Brewers are going to win 108 games.

 

I'm not certain how you can say that we're no more destined for "failure," if we were 9-20 as opposed to 20-9, but I think that goes back to your general disagreement with everything the Brewers have done in....a while.

 

 

Nothing has "magically," happened. But the Brewers have obviously done a better job at developing their own prospects than we thought they were doing the past couple years, and they've also had more success with their own prospects and free agents than many thought they would have.

I don't believe though that they or anyone else is looking at this start saying, "hell, we don't have to worry about drafting and developing players, we can just sign aging vets to fill in and we'll be fine."

 

They went after a high ceiling prep arm last year, it looks like they're going to end up with at least one of the top Latin American prospects and perhaps a couple other solid ones one year after picking up two higher profile guys last year. But until they build their system back up, I'm not sure why we can't be happy we're having success however we're having it right now. It's not sustainable to expect to get middle of the order production out of free agents like Ramirez, or front of the rotation guys like Lohse, Garza or to pick up a lock down closer like K-Rod. But we're doing alright with that this year.

 

There also isn't just one way to build a team. Many of the things you want are just unrealistic. I just suggested a Gallardo trade knowing full well it's not going to happen while the team is performing well. That would undoubtedly be the best for long term success, but there is probably only one front office in baseball who'd make such a trade.

[Oxy]

This debate is going in circles and instead of posting the same ideas again in a slightly different manner I'll leave it at this:

 

Just because a team get's "competitive" doesn't mean some magical switch flips and all of sudden the principles of roster and organization construction somehow get changed. That's the biggest fallacy in professional sports and why so many teams have cycles of extreme success and failure. I can certainly understand "face of franchise" and the nostalgia of "player for life" ideas/perspectives, when I was younger I felt the same way about the players on the teams I rooted for. I think those philosophies are relics of a bygone era, I saw Montana move on from the 49ers, Molitor from the Brewers and my perspective began to change, by the time Farve moved on from the Packers I was ready for him to go. For the most part those models don't work in modern professional sports anymore where athletes are just chasing the best contract possible in the vast majority of cases. Only a very small slice of professional franchises, all in baseball, can overpay aging and declining athletes and still manage to put a functional team around them.

 

Staying relevant isn't about a continual cycle of FA acquisitions in most sports, and certainly hasn't kept the Brewers competitive year in and year out. The Brewers have been hot but there's no way they are going to win at better than a .666 clip all year, the fact that they are 20-9 shouldn't mean anything more than if they were 9-20, doing the right thing for the long-term health of the franchise is independent of the team's record. The only true difference would be fan perception of the season so far, but a 9-20 start wouldn't mean we are destined for failure anymore than the 20-9 start means we are WS bound.

 

They aren't using FAs to "build" a team though a la the 2000s era Yankees. They have plugged holes here and there with mid-level FAs in order to remain an above average team that can reasonably threaten to make the playoffs. The budget HAS allowed for this strategy. We can afford to sign a good FA nearly every year so long as those contracts are only 3-4 years long. What else are you going to do with the money? Tell the fanbase that you've invested tens of millions of dollars in a a few Latin American scouting and development camps that are going to pay off in 2025 while the team wins 71 games in 2014? Sorry, but I'll take Ramirez, Lohse, Garza and meaningful games in August and September.

 

Meanwhile the CORE of the team is All-star caliber young players at C, SS, and CF--the 3 most important "positions" on the field. Two of those were directly a result of Melvin trades--sometimes even getting rid of prospects! Somewhat amazingly, Lucroy was probably the least heralded MLB prospect coming through our system post-Ryan Braun, and yet he is pretty easily the best player of the bunch. Maybe Melvin was just lucky, but if he can keep trading away the Matt LaPorta's and Brett Lawrie's of the world in order to end up with Jean Segura's and hold onto Lucroy's, go ahead and do it. In my mind, he's earned the leash. If only he would have traded Mat Gamel too! Maybe then we'd have a World Series ring :P.

[Oxy]

Staying relevant isn't about a continual cycle of FA acquisitions in most sports, and certainly hasn't kept the Brewers competitive year in and year out. The Brewers have been hot but there's no way they are going to win at better than a .666 clip all year, the fact that they are 20-9 shouldn't mean anything more than if they were 9-20, doing the right thing for the long-term health of the franchise is independent of the team's record. The only true difference would be fan perception of the season so far, but a 9-20 start wouldn't mean we are destined for failure anymore than the 20-9 start means we are WS bound.

 

I'd disagree with this. I think the FA signings (and trading prospects) is directly what has kept the Brewers competitive year in and year out since 2008 or so--which is a pretty significant amount of time. Obviously, last year was a lost year due to injuries and suspensions, but that will happen occasionally. This team isn't a .666 ballclub, no, but with a little luck it might be a .575 ballclub, which is certainly good enough.

[logan82]

Your definition and my definition of competitive are very different if you think we have been competitive every year since 2008. I don't think they were competitive last year or in 2009-2010. 2012 wasn't all that great either. You can say injuries or suspensions all you want but when you build a team that top heavy without any depth things can go south quickly.

[Bnowell4evr]

This debate is going in circles and instead of posting the same ideas again in a slightly different manner I'll leave it at this:

 

Just because a team get's "competitive" doesn't mean some magical switch flips and all of sudden the principles of roster and organization construction somehow get changed. That's the biggest fallacy in professional sports and why so many teams have cycles of extreme success and failure. I can certainly understand "face of franchise" and the nostalgia of "player for life" ideas/perspectives, when I was younger I felt the same way about the players on the teams I rooted for. I think those philosophies are relics of a bygone era, I saw Montana move on from the 49ers, Molitor from the Brewers and my perspective began to change, by the time Farve moved on from the Packers I was ready for him to go. For the most part those models don't work in modern professional sports anymore where athletes are just chasing the best contract possible in the vast majority of cases. Only a very small slice of professional franchises, all in baseball, can overpay aging and declining athletes and still manage to put a functional team around them.

 

Staying relevant isn't about a continual cycle of FA acquisitions in most sports, and certainly hasn't kept the Brewers competitive year in and year out. The Brewers have been hot but there's no way they are going to win at better than a .666 clip all year, the fact that they are 20-9 shouldn't mean anything more than if they were 9-20, doing the right thing for the long-term health of the franchise is independent of the team's record. The only true difference would be fan perception of the season so far, but a 9-20 start wouldn't mean we are destined for failure anymore than the 20-9 start means we are WS bound.

 

So what are you trying to say? That we need to trade Braun during the season we started out 21-10? And Favre is spelt F-A-V-R-E.

[HiAndTight]

This debate is going in circles and instead of posting the same ideas again in a slightly different manner I'll leave it at this:

 

Just because a team get's "competitive" doesn't mean some magical switch flips and all of sudden the principles of roster and organization construction somehow get changed. That's the biggest fallacy in professional sports and why so many teams have cycles of extreme success and failure. I can certainly understand "face of franchise" and the nostalgia of "player for life" ideas/perspectives, when I was younger I felt the same way about the players on the teams I rooted for. I think those philosophies are relics of a bygone era, I saw Montana move on from the 49ers, Molitor from the Brewers and my perspective began to change, by the time Farve moved on from the Packers I was ready for him to go. For the most part those models don't work in modern professional sports anymore where athletes are just chasing the best contract possible in the vast majority of cases. Only a very small slice of professional franchises, all in baseball, can overpay aging and declining athletes and still manage to put a functional team around them.

 

Staying relevant isn't about a continual cycle of FA acquisitions in most sports, and certainly hasn't kept the Brewers competitive year in and year out. The Brewers have been hot but there's no way they are going to win at better than a .666 clip all year, the fact that they are 20-9 shouldn't mean anything more than if they were 9-20, doing the right thing for the long-term health of the franchise is independent of the team's record. The only true difference would be fan perception of the season so far, but a 9-20 start wouldn't mean we are destined for failure anymore than the 20-9 start means we are WS bound.

 

They aren't using FAs to "build" a team though a la the 2000s era Yankees. They have plugged holes here and there with mid-level FAs in order to remain an above average team that can reasonably threaten to make the playoffs. The budget HAS allowed for this strategy. We can afford to sign a good FA nearly every year so long as those contracts are only 3-4 years long. What else are you going to do with the money? Tell the fanbase that you've invested tens of millions of dollars in a a few Latin American scouting and development camps that are going to pay off in 2025 while the team wins 71 games in 2014? Sorry, but I'll take Ramirez, Lohse, Garza and meaningful games in August and September.

 

Meanwhile the CORE of the team is All-star caliber young players at C, SS, and CF--the 3 most important "positions" on the field. Two of those were directly a result of Melvin trades--sometimes even getting rid of prospects! Somewhat amazingly, Lucroy was probably the least heralded MLB prospect coming through our system post-Ryan Braun, and yet he is pretty easily the best player of the bunch. Maybe Melvin was just lucky, but if he can keep trading away the Matt LaPorta's and Brett Lawrie's of the world in order to end up with Jean Segura's and hold onto Lucroy's, go ahead and do it. In my mind, he's earned the leash. If only he would have traded Mat Gamel too! Maybe then we'd have a World Series ring :P.

 

 

I agree(though I still like Lawrie and would love to have him over Marcum).

 

But Melvin has done a lot of things that have gone unrecognized. He's done job of recycling what he has into useful players. They signed Aoki(which Crew07 just chalks up to luck, but then when two of the consensus top 10 overall prospects don't pan out and it's an organizational flaw that we didn't take better players in the 2011 draft) who was very useful and at a very good price for two years then turned around and turned him into Will Smith a incredibly promising looking young power lefty who could very well end up in the rotation.

Hardy for Gomez. Locking up Lucroy, picking up Estrada. We had a couple years of very bad drafts. Had we hit in Arnett, Jungman/Bradley drafts, those players would be on the team right now and our future would look better. But...things happen. The draft is extremely volatile. Especially when dealing with pitchers.

 

They're aggressively going after Latin American players, they've got an underrated group in the minors right now, and the FA moves we've made have been pretty good as of late.

 

You can continue to just constantly belabor misses we've had in the draft and complain about almost literally everything, or you can look the fact that we've got a competitive team, a very nice core of young starting pitchers(Peralta, Thornburg, Nelson, Smith) and a core of key players signed for the near future(Luc, Segura, Braun, Gomez). And several young guys who are performing very well.. I believe our farm system hit just about rock bottom, but is certainly on the upswing. This draft is an important one. Between the LA signings last year, Para this year, and our draft, there is the opportunity to add a lot of talent to the guys like Coulter, Taylor, Roache, Arcia and others(Richardson despite the fact he's a bit older).

 

 

So we can keep hearing how we're not a 108 win team, but things also aren't nearly as dire as other prognosticators would have you believe. This draft is an important one.

[paul253]

or you can look the fact that we've got a competitive team, a very nice core of young starting pitchers(Peralta, Thornburg, Nelson, Smith) and a core of key players signed for the near future(Luc, Segura, Braun, Gomez).

 

I'll agree that we have a nice core of positional players and I think one thing DM has been good at is developing bullpen guys. But I don't think you can argue we have a nice core of young starting pitchers when three of the four guys you mentioned aren't even starters right now. Will Smith struggled as a starter in KC, which is why he was moved to the pen. And DM elected to throw four years and 50 million at a 30 year old SP rather than give the other two a chance to win the rotation spot.

 

I'd like to believe the farm system is improving but nothing DM or the scouting department has done gives me any confidence at all that they know what they are doing. This draft is important yes, but all drafts are important and they are missing way, way too often. You can't solve your problems with one good draft you need to have a consistent run of good drafts. I'm just not sure if this organization is capable of that. And while people here have argued that prospects are overrated, I'll just ask this. How were we able to acquire guys like Sabathia, Greinke, and Marcum? We had top prospects that other teams wanted. Assuming we are still in contention near the deadline this year, who exactly are we going to trade to upgrade, say, first base? Other than Jimmy Nelson and maybe Tyrone Taylor, do we have any prospects that anyone thinks could be the centerpiece of a trade? So regardless of how overrated prospects may be we still need them. And we need highly regarded prospects, not just ones that we can convince ourselves may be an every day player eventually.

 

Getting back to Estrada. I don't know what to do with him but someone has to be traded after this season. I don't care if it's Estrada, Lohse or Gallardo. But we need to make room for the young, cheap pitcher, be it Thornburg, Nelson, or Smith, and we also need to improve our system. Two birds with one stone.

[SoupTown]

"Getting back to Estrada. I don't know what to do with him but someone has to be traded after this season. I don't care if it's Estrada, Lohse or Gallardo. But we need to make room for the young, cheap pitcher, be it Thornburg, Nelson, or Smith, and we also need to improve our system. Two birds with one stone."

 

I agree so much with this summation.

 

Yet, let me play devil's advocate.... we will/can lose Frankie and Gonzales (and of course Wang) from the pen. Is that all? (Duke makes four?) So, you can indeed FIND three places to fill from AAA into the bullpen. I really don't mind the first year of a starter in MLB being in the bullpen. Can I ask, would that actually make him a bit cheaper come arby (just a throw in thought there). So if Thonburg is the closer and Nelson and Fier and others make the pen... is it a given we MUST trade a starter.

 

I guess the MUST trade a starter would depend on what we are offered in return.

[paul253]

So if Thonburg is the closer and Nelson and Fier and others make the pen... is it a given we MUST trade a starter.

 

Personally I think it is a must. I don't mind Smith in the pen because he's struggled as a starter and pitched well as a reliever. I wouldn't mind giving him a shot at the rotation but I'd be ok with him in the pen. Thornburg and Nelson, to me, are different. They both have upsides as #3s and I don't think you can waste that away in the bullpen. If they don't cut it as a starters I have no problem with them in the pen. But Thornburg excelled in that role last year and Nelson is putting up fantastic numbers in AAA. For an organization that has so much trouble developing their own starting pitchers it seems odd that they'd take the ones they do have and not even use them.

 

And let's not sleep on Ariel Pena either. He's might be an option next year.

[monty57]

Yet, let me play devil's advocate.... we will/can lose Frankie and Gonzales (and of course Wang) from the pen. Is that all? (Duke makes four?) So, you can indeed FIND three places to fill from AAA into the bullpen.

 

I believe you mean Gorzellany. Yes, we lose K-Rod, Gorzellany and Duke, but to be fair of the four you mentioned, Gorzellany hasn't pitched all year and Wang is basically a waste of a roster spot, so the "gap" if we choose not to use Thornberg or Nelson in the pen next year will be finding someone to take the place of K-Rod, Duke and Thornberg (hopefully Gorzellany comes back strong, but we've shown that we can have a good pen without him).

 

Not an easy task, but I would not be surprised to see Melvin extend K-Rod. I actually wouldn't mind this (assuming it's not crazy money & length) in large part because if he does leave, I could see the team moving Thornberg to closer. It makes sense to spend money to retain K-Rod if it allows us to save money by trading an expensive starter and inserting Thornberg into the rotation. For the other spots, thankfully we do seem to have a lot of minor league pitchers who project to be MLB relievers, so we should be able to fill most of the pen with league-minimum guys from the minors... it doesn't have to be our best SP prospect(s), we have plenty of other candidates.

 

A big reason I think trading someone (Gallardo, Lohse or Estrada) next offseason is necessary is that all three of them are free agents after 2015. There's no way the Brewers are going to start a season with two "rookie" starting pitchers much less three. By trading one of the above three, that opens a spot for either Thornberg or Nelson to step into next season's rotation. I don't think that next year Thornberg or Nelson would be a huge step back from whoever is traded, plus we get to add the talent of whoever we receive in trade and save some money. Then, in 2016 a lot of things could happen. Hopefully one of those things is that we have a few pitchers knocking on the door making the loss of the other two SP less painful. If not, then we'd probably replace one of them with a FA, going with something like Garza, Peralta, Thornberg, Nelson, FA.

[TheCrew07]

The Brewers literally have a plethora of relief options up and down the minor leagues, they could easily plug in someone like Fiers into the bullpen to slide Thorburg into the rotation. I would like to break in 1 young pitcher into the rotation every year but the way it is setup right now the Brewers will have to replace 3 starting pitchers in 2016. I'd like to move one and make some room to allow for some upward mobility to get younger pitchers some experience before we absolutely need to rely on them because we don't have other options.

 

I don't consider temporary injury replacements as significant experience, it is certainly better than nothing, but I'd like young pitchers handled like how Peralta was last year. Give them a spot and let them sink or swim for a season.

 

I don't see any issue filling the necessary bullpen spots next season if Thornburg is shifted to the rotation. What I really don't want to see is Thornburg made the closer before he's given the opportunity to succeed or fail in the rotation. To me the bullpen is a last resort for talented pitchers that struggle in the rotation or a good home for your less talented guys who get pushed out of the rotation by superior pitchers. It shouldn't be the first home for any pitcher, it should be the last option.

[Warning Track Power]

I would like to break in 1 young pitcher into the rotation every year but the way it is setup right now the Brewers will have to replace 3 starting pitchers in 2016. I'd like to move one and make some room to allow for some upward mobility to get younger pitchers some experience before we absolutely need to rely on them because we don't have other options.

Agreed and I think the Brewers should be looking into making a deal of one of the three (Estrada, Lohse, Gallardo) for a piece or pieces that could fit in at a corner IF spot. If the Brewers want to break in Nelson into the rotation for 2015, which they should, I think a move of Estrada would be the most beneficial. One of the options I have considered personally, is moving Estrada for Mike Moustakas. I personally don't believe Estrada would bring in much in terms of young prospects, but Moustakas is only 25 and would still be under Brewer control for another 3 seasons, 2015-2017, before becoming eligible for FA.

[HiAndTight]

or you can look the fact that we've got a competitive team, a very nice core of young starting pitchers(Peralta, Thornburg, Nelson, Smith) and a core of key players signed for the near future(Luc, Segura, Braun, Gomez).

 

I'll agree that we have a nice core of positional players and I think one thing DM has been good at is developing bullpen guys. But I don't think you can argue we have a nice core of young starting pitchers when three of the four guys you mentioned aren't even starters right now. Will Smith struggled as a starter in KC, which is why he was moved to the pen. And DM elected to throw four years and 50 million at a 30 year old SP rather than give the other two a chance to win the rotation spot.

 

I'd like to believe the farm system is improving but nothing DM or the scouting department has done gives me any confidence at all that they know what they are doing. This draft is important yes, but all drafts are important and they are missing way, way too often. You can't solve your problems with one good draft you need to have a consistent run of good drafts. I'm just not sure if this organization is capable of that. And while people here have argued that prospects are overrated, I'll just ask this. How were we able to acquire guys like Sabathia, Greinke, and Marcum? We had top prospects that other teams wanted. Assuming we are still in contention near the deadline this year, who exactly are we going to trade to upgrade, say, first base? Other than Jimmy Nelson and maybe Tyrone Taylor, do we have any prospects that anyone thinks could be the centerpiece of a trade? So regardless of how overrated prospects may be we still need them. And we need highly regarded prospects, not just ones that we can convince ourselves may be an every day player eventually.

 

Getting back to Estrada. I don't know what to do with him but someone has to be traded after this season. I don't care if it's Estrada, Lohse or Gallardo. But we need to make room for the young, cheap pitcher, be it Thornburg, Nelson, or Smith, and we also need to improve our system. Two birds with one stone.

 

 

 

This is a bit of an oversimplification of the facts.

Will Smith at age 22 struggled as a starter for the Royals in the AL Central. Though I'm not even sure I consider a 4.66 ERA "struggling," in 89 innings for a 22 year old. Just for comparisons sake, Wily Peralta at age 24 had a 4.30 FIP.

 

So I agree Smith didn't dominate in his first go 'round as a starter. How many pitchers really do though? And how big of a deal is it when they do? Mike Fiers was pretty dominant in his first dozen starts.

 

Second, Smith wasn't sent to the pen because he wasn't good enough so much as the fact that the Royals made the monumentally stupid trade to acquire James Shields(IMO anyway) as well as to add Ervin Santana. Both very good pitchers who had very good years.

 

Third, I don't buy the argument that because the Brewers chose to sign Matt Garza that means anything regarding our younger arms like Jimmy Nelson, Thornburg or Smith. I don't know why they chose to sign Garza. I don't really care to be honest. It doesn't change my opinion of the guys we have. They had money, Mark A likes to make a splash to get interest in the team up.

 

But you can't use the argument that Smith wasn't good in his time as a reliever and then turn around and dismiss Thornburg's 2.37 ERA in 10 starts.

 

 

 

If you just don't believe that Thornburg, Smith, Nelson and then obviously Peralta are that good, then that's fine. But to try and take one small sample size here and say he must not be that good because the Royals didn't even start him, or that the Brewers preferred Garza to Thornburg and/or Nelson, so you can't really count either of them as starters....you're taking the confluence of events and say these very young pitchers who've got big arms aren't starters.

 

 

Maybe I'm optimistic. I can't help but be incredibly encouraged by Thornburg. People believed he was going to be a reliever due to his size(common to most guys under 6') but even more so due to the lack of a 3rd pitch. I don't think anyone has any such concerns anymore.

Smith is a big lefty who's got 3 pitches and has started every year of his career save for last year and the first month of this one. I don't think him taking the ball every 5th day is a big leap.

Nelson has looked fantastic and is a top 100 prospect, Peralta is obviously pretty established.

[paul253]

If you just don't believe that Thornburg, Smith, Nelson and then obviously Peralta are that good, then that's fine. But to try and take one small sample size here and say he must not be that good because the Royals didn't even start him, or that the Brewers preferred Garza to Thornburg and/or Nelson, so you can't really count either of them as starters....you're taking the confluence of events and say these very young pitchers who've got big arms aren't starters.

When I said "they aren't starters" I meant it literally....as in right now they are not starters. I would imagine Thornburg and Nelson both project as starters. Maybe Smith does too I don't really know as much about him. My point is that you can't claim we have a nice core of starting pitchers when only one of the four you mentioned is currently a major league starter. How can they compose "a core" when they aren't even in the role right now? If anything our young pitchers have "promise" or "potential" to form a core but that is much, much different than calling them a core.

 

Regarding Smith. According to baseball reference in his age 22 season where he started 16 games his ERA was not 4.66 it was 5.32. I know he's young but yes, that is "struggling". And just like I shouldn't (and wasn't) assume that he won't get any better you shouldn't just assume that he will. Over the course of his minor league career he put up a 3.80 ERA, though his lowest ERA year came in 2013 when 18 of his 28 appearances came in relief. I can't find his minor league splits but in his brief major league career it seems apparent that he's found much more success as a reliever. If you want to give him a shot as a starter I'd be all for it. But until he actually sees success as a major league starter you cannot consider him a core piece.

 

I wasn't trying to call you out or anything like that. I just think it's a little premature to call those guys, with the exception of Peralta, part of a core. The way Thornburg is pitching out of the bullpen he may never start a game again. Same with Smith. And until DM actually trades away a starter there is no room for Nelson in the rotation either.

[monty57]

The way Thornburg is pitching out of the bullpen he may never start a game again.

 

Unfortunately, I think there's a very good chance of this happening. One player (probably Estrada) will be traded next offseason. Since Thornburg has already proven he can pitch out of the pen, Nelson will step into the rotation, while Thornburg is moved to closer as K-Rod gets a monster contract elsewhere after "re-establishing" himself as a closer this season.

[JohnBriggs12]

I think Brewers would be smart to deal Estrada. Not sure his value is all that high though. We've probably seen his ceiling and it's more a solid #4 type and those guys aren't in great demand especially as they are cashing in in arbitration. Any slip and they become non-tender candidates quickly.

[Roderick]

while Thornburg is moved to closer as K-Rod gets a monster contract elsewhere after "re-establishing" himself as a closer this season.

You don't think the Brewers trade KRod away so that he can be awful for the other team and come cheap back to them the next season?