Plans for the Future

[Mudville9]

Ok, not giving up all hope yet, but right now it looks like it may not be in the cards this year. IF we start selling, how advanced a player are we looking for?

 

MA/DM are known to look at almost major league ready players normally, but if we start a fire sale, shouldn't we be looking at players in the A and AA level to come up with our homegrown stars?

 

If we do that, will that cause problems later on for the 40 man roster?

 

Sorry for all the questions, but this is the first time I can remember being in a position to possibly get a lot of talent into system in one season. Thanks for the responses beforehand!

[reillymcshane]

 

MA/DM are known to look at almost major league ready players normally, but if we start a fire sale, shouldn't we be looking at players in the A and AA level to come up with our homegrown stars?

 

We should consider players at any level. I don't think it really matters what level they are at. As you note, Milwaukee always tends to look at 'major league ready' players. But that is because often times we were looking to quickly fill holes at the major league level.

 

To me, it's about getting the best player possible. The lower the level a guy is at, the more risk - and reward - he brings. Identifying these players are tough, however. Using Milwaukee as an example - Arcia and Taylor are just now reaching 'Top 100' prospect status as they reach AA. Milwaukee should be looking to acquire players like that. No one would trade Arcia for Kyle Lohse right now, but Kyle Lohse may fetch a 19 year old Arcia-like player in rookie ball or A ball. Again, there's more risk - but more reward.

 

I don't think the club needs to worry about bringing everyone up at once. In some respects, staggering the players introduction into the big league roster is advantageous - you don't have too many rookies come up at once, you ultimately don't have too many players hitting free agency at the same time - that sort of thing. If you get a player who moves into the rotation in 2016, he could be a highly valuable veteran in 2019 to anchor the staff around. I think the key is really just having a steady stream of players, year after year.

[brewcrewdue80]

It all really depends on how much a sell off the team goes in to. There's not a whole lot of depth. Trading both Lohse and Garza I think requires a trade of a SP that can be plugged in to AAA and used this season. If only 1 of Lohse and keeping Garza then the team should be able to manage. We talk about Segura who I think can get that SP in trade if he's removed we're fine. Parra, Gomez, Lind, Ramirez the longer the list of trades are you have to look at replacements. Rogers can/will likely play 1b if Lind is traded. Gomez and Parra traded? you think a close to ML ready OF in return.

 

You only trade say a Garza and Segura with Parra/Lind I'd look for that high upside A-AA player. You trade away the whole lot of trade pieces and you have to mix in a ML ready prospect with those longer away pieces. Gotta field some kind of 25man that's actually at least Replacement level talent.

 

I doubt ARam has any kind of trade value even if he starts OPS around .770 or better. He's just too pricey and a clear salary relief type.

Lind you gotta love. Brewers stand to get more back than Marco Estrada with his performance thus far. And he has an option so the team getting him has him full season next year.

Gomez is the prize to be traded. And there in lies part of the problem. What if he's the first to be traded? No doubt he's worthy of a MLB ready prospect if not 2 by the start of next season. Let's say the team goes that route. Now you start thinking every trade will be for ML ready types. #4 type SPs a Brock Holt type Utility.

 

With this team, it doesn't seem they really have any plans for the future, sans the Gallardo trade. Do they continue on that kind of trade talk? Or plug holes in the 25man supposedly and field a team middle of the pack again?

 

There isn't a right or wrong answer to ML ready acquiring vs A ball 19yr old acquiring. You hopefully get the best talent with either choice. Just hopefully they get Talent.

[craigharmann]

A plan for the future? Who does that anyway! Look at the Cubs and the Astros. They did that "plan for the future" thing and look at where it has got them.....

[monty57]

Nice posts bcd80 and reilly.

 

I have seen a lot of people saying we need to target only guys in the low minors so everyone can come up together, but I think that limits you almost as much as only looking for "MLB ready" guys. Just get the best talent you can, regardless of level, and I don't care what year their expected to reach the MLB level. Some guys will be in AAA, some younger, and some may already have some MLB service time.

 

This is not 100%, but I generally expect that when you trade away "proven," you get multiple "unproven" guys, so hopefully if we start trading guys we will get talent at all levels of the minors, and probably some that will be on the MLB squad immediately. Not talking guys with 1-2 years of control left, but rather guys who have some MLB service time. You may also have to take a guy back to even out some salary (i.e. Ramirez for a promising A ball prospect plus some underperforming schmoe making $4MM in his final year).

 

I'm not overly concerned about what this year's team looks like when the trades are done. If we go "full rebuild," we'll still be able to see Nelson progress as a Brewer, see if Braun will regain his form, and will probably have one or two young guys from the trades that will get hyped to try to keep ticket sales up. Really, I'm concerned about building a stream of players that come up from the farm over the next handful of seasons. That will require talented prospects at all levels coming back in trade.

 

As bcd80 said, just get the best talent you can.

[BrewBalls]

Another thing to think about is if we do trade away the majority of our starters (i.e. Gomez, Parra, Garza, Lohse, Segura, Lind and possibly Ramirez) we might reach 100 losses this season and likely get a top 3 ick in next years draft. This should net us another stud prospect to add to the haul we receive for trading the aforementioned players. This could definitely help to jump start our rebuild.

[Outlander]

I would think they would go the rule 5 route as well if they get the top pick.

[MrTPlush]

Sign some high risk high reward players on 1 year contracts the next few years. Just get a lot of players to flip like the Cubs were doing.

[igor67]

In the abstract getting BPA is the best way to go, but I do think you are much more likely to get the best player by targeting players lower in the minors. Actual results may differ (you might find really good AAA guys who are blocked for example). For me it is less about bunching those guys to come up together, since one could imagine some of the best current players like Coulter and Arcia moving either fairly quickly (up at some point next year), or more slowly. The more significant issue is that you need to have playing time for the guys you are acquiring, the draft is unlikely to add more than 1 player who makes it to Appelton. As a result you could fit quite a few guys into the low or high A rosters that would be prospect upgrades over the current guys. This is where it starts to get tricky. Prospects like Roache are great value if they break-out you also get a high ceiling type, but if they are taking time away from say a Micheal Reed with a lower ceiling, but a guy who seems like he is likely to develop into at least a role player...

[SoupTown]

I did not pay attention to the Cubs flipping one year top guys. Oakland used to do that and/or clean up on draft picks.

 

re the FUTURE... man I would have more interest again if we trade

 

ARAM - let Hector Gomez play 3rd

Lind - let a combo of Clark and Rogers play there

Lohse - Let Thornburg come back up

Parra - we dont use the fourth outfielder at all, we have Herrera and Shafer

KRod - you let Knebel be the closer (or maybe Smith or maybe Jeffress)

Broxton - if you can; I dont know who replaces

Cotts - if you can; I dont know who replaces

 

You just get the best prospect you can. Dont worry re position or level. Just get a half dozen decent prospect from the above. They dont need to be in Milwaukee this year or next.

 

You dangle Segura for a good package. Remember Jean will leave after his six years. Sardinas replaces him.

You dangle Lucroy for a monster package. You let Maldy play full time.

You dangle Gomez for a monster package. I am not sure what you do for CF. Maybe one of the prospects coming back can slot in.

 

Aside from the last three lines, the above list does not even hurt our team too much. Re the 'who knows' relievers to come up, there are a bundle of guys (mostly starters) who are doing well, and have a history of doing well, and are not spring chickens... Tyler Wagner, Tyler Cravy, even Brent Leach, Michael Strong, Brooks Hall. We got plenty of 25ish year old guys that we can see who sticks to the wall. Heck, you can even rotate them in and out. You will find one or two you can count on for the next six years. You only find out about giving them a go.

[TheCrew07]

Nice posts bcd80 and reilly.

 

I have seen a lot of people saying we need to target only guys in the low minors so everyone can come up together, but I think that limits you almost as much as only looking for "MLB ready" guys. Just get the best talent you can, regardless of level, and I don't care what year their expected to reach the MLB level. Some guys will be in AAA, some younger, and some may already have some MLB service time.

 

While I agree with your premise in principle, the reality is that the higher up in the MiLB chain a prospect is the more expensive he is, this is no different than MLB. The better performance you get, the more you have to pay... So if you're talking about get the best possible talent for a player like a Lohse for example, well that talent most likely isn't going to be in AA or AAA, he's going to be in any of the rookie leagues or A ball. A player like Lohse could land you a big armed reliever with control issues in AA but that type of prospect doesn't interest me. If they aren't consistently throwing strikes by the time they hit AA, and especially AAA, then I'd rather move on. The upper minors are filled with those guys, especially AAA, the majority of them are never going to have a sustained MLB career because if they haven't learned it by then, what's going to change? Especially in the Brewer organization, it's not like we have a great record of developing pitchers.

 

Furthermore I'm interested in starting pitching, so any time we target a reliever in a trade it will draw my ire by default. I'd rather acquire as many big armed starting pitchers as possible and convert them to relief as last resort rather than trading 180 innings for 60 from the get go. I believe that it's much easier to find relievers than it is to find starting pitching. I'd rather devote more resources to the more difficult path...

[torts]

Nice posts bcd80 and reilly.

 

I have seen a lot of people saying we need to target only guys in the low minors so everyone can come up together, but I think that limits you almost as much as only looking for "MLB ready" guys. Just get the best talent you can, regardless of level, and I don't care what year their expected to reach the MLB level. Some guys will be in AAA, some younger, and some may already have some MLB service time.

 

While I agree with your premise in principle, the reality is that the higher up in the MiLB chain a prospect is the more expensive he is, this is no different than MLB. The better performance you get, the more you have to pay... So if you're talking about get the best possible talent for a player like a Lohse for example, well that talent most likely isn't going to be in AA or AAA, he's going to be in any of the rookie leagues or A ball. A player like Lohse could land you a big armed reliever with control issues in AA but that type of prospect doesn't interest me. If they aren't consistently throwing strikes by the time they hit AA, and especially AAA, then I'd rather move on. The upper minors are filled with those guys, especially AAA, the majority of them are never going to have a sustained MLB career because if they haven't learned it by then, what's going to change? Especially in the Brewer organization, it's not like we have a great record of developing pitchers.

 

Furthermore I'm interested in starting pitching, so any time we target a reliever in a trade it will draw my ire by default. I'd rather acquire as many big armed starting pitchers as possible and convert them to relief as last resort rather than trading 180 innings for 60 from the get go. I believe that it's much easier to find relievers than it is to find starting pitching. I'd rather devote more resources to the more difficult path...

 

I am totally 100% on board with this

[monty57]

Nice posts bcd80 and reilly.

 

I have seen a lot of people saying we need to target only guys in the low minors so everyone can come up together, but I think that limits you almost as much as only looking for "MLB ready" guys. Just get the best talent you can, regardless of level, and I don't care what year their expected to reach the MLB level. Some guys will be in AAA, some younger, and some may already have some MLB service time.

 

While I agree with your premise in principle, the reality is that the higher up in the MiLB chain a prospect is the more expensive he is, this is no different than MLB. The better performance you get, the more you have to pay... So if you're talking about get the best possible talent for a player like a Lohse for example, well that talent most likely isn't going to be in AA or AAA, he's going to be in any of the rookie leagues or A ball. A player like Lohse could land you a big armed reliever with control issues in AA but that type of prospect doesn't interest me. If they aren't consistently throwing strikes by the time they hit AA, and especially AAA, then I'd rather move on. The upper minors are filled with those guys, especially AAA, the majority of them are never going to have a sustained MLB career because if they haven't learned it by then, what's going to change? Especially in the Brewer organization, it's not like we have a great record of developing pitchers.

 

Furthermore I'm interested in starting pitching, so any time we target a reliever in a trade it will draw my ire by default. I'd rather acquire as many big armed starting pitchers as possible and convert them to relief as last resort rather than trading 180 innings for 60 from the get go. I believe that it's much easier to find relievers than it is to find starting pitching. I'd rather devote more resources to the more difficult path...

 

True. I guess what I am thinking is that if we really sell into the idea of doing this, we should get a lot of guys back. If one of them happens to be an MLB-caliber 3B who's blocked with his current club, I'm fine with that.

 

This may not be reality, but I'll use it as an example because I know the names: If the Mets offer a package centered around Syndergaard for Gomez, I'm not going to turn it down just because we won't be contending in Syndergaard's first couple of seasons. Getting someone like this may mean we get two prospects back instead of four younger guys, but I'd have a hard time passing it up. Of course, Lucroy and Gomez are the only trade chips we have who could bring back a stud like this, and I would think that trading either of them should bring back an "elite" guy (probably higher minors) plus at least one other Top 100 guy in the lower minors.

 

I completely agree that if we trade a lesser guy (Lohse, K-Rod, etc) I'd rather get an A-baller with a lot of upside than a "low ceiling" guy in the high minors.