Open for business (part 1)

[homer]

Sorry Ennder I was suggesting Vegas O/U odds. Probably a 75.5 to 79.5 when Lohse signed. I just remember the Brewers pretty much being O/U the last 3 years under 80 wins.

 

Vegas odds are built to promote betting. Baseballprospectus has generally pegged the team as low 80s wins since Fielder left the team. It is heavily regressed so that generally means 'in the playoff mix'. Last year they actually got over a 90% playoff odds at one point, it took a really huge collapse to not make it. A collapse largely caused by most of the lineup getting nagging injuries at the same time, not due to lack of talent.

 

I believe the odds are generally set to promote even betting on both sides of the O/U. Basically, Vegas wants 50/50 split between over bets and under bets. They use a lot of the same statistical numbers everyone else does to get to their lines.

[pacopete4]

Had the Brewers signed a pitcher similar to Lohse, who was 28-years old to the same deal, I doubt many people would have been too upset.

 

But you do not get to sign pitchers like Lohse at the age of 28 for only three years and the money we gave him. That's not realistic. The price would've been way more and the length would have been too.

[LouisEly]

Had the Brewers signed a pitcher similar to Lohse, who was 28-years old to the same deal, I doubt many people would have been too upset.

 

But you do not get to sign pitchers like Lohse at the age of 28 for only three years and the money we gave him. That's not realistic. The price would've been way more and the length would have been too.

Exhibit A: Rick Porcello, at the age of 26 and of a career 4.30 ERA and 5.6 K/9, signed a 6-year, $116M contract with Boston this past offseason.

[logan82]

No matter the argument anyone makes here it will not change those people's opinions who see draft picks as the end all for building a team nor will it change the opinion of someone who is okay with giving up a draft pick for a steady, above average pitcher for 2-3 years.

 

If you go back and read the original Lohse signing thread I was hardcore against it and said some very mean things about him and the Brewers organization. However, watching him pitch has changed my mind. If I look at it as simply the numbers Lohse out up, he was worth the money and the pick. When considering the fact that it didn't even lead to a Brewer's playoff appearance, though, it maybe wasn't the best use of resources. Not that I have any faith in this organization that they would have drafted the right player and developed him correctly though.

I don't know about that. They have been drafting pretty well for a few years now. Starting in about 2012 the draft started to turn for us. They picked up Arcia in 2011, I think.

[monty57]

Had the Brewers signed a pitcher similar to Lohse, who was 28-years old to the same deal, I doubt many people would have been too upset.

 

But you do not get to sign pitchers like Lohse at the age of 28 for only three years and the money we gave him. That's not realistic. The price would've been way more and the length would have been too.

 

Which is why we should generally steer clear of the free agent market, as by nature you have to be the highest bidder in order to get the player to sign. Being a low-revenue team, the Brewers cannot afford to pay above market value for talent on a regular basis. If, as seems to be the case, Melvin cannot compete for younger/better talent, and instead has to promise over-the-hill guys an extra year or two to get them to sign, then we are doomed to always have guys who were formerly good but are past their useful lifespan making eight figure salaries. With our payroll, we can't win with these type of guys on the roster.

 

For most of these deals, we shouldn't consider it 3/$33MM, for an average salary of $11MM but rather 2/$33MM for an average salary of $16.5MM since most of the older guys we've signed (guys like Suppan, Wolf, Ramirez) have been okay for the first part of the contract, but useless in the final year(s). We would be best off just cutting these guys prior to their final year, so they aren't giving us negative value and wasting a roster spot that could be used on a more productive player. Relying on these type of deals for key players is not a good strategy, and if we can't afford to get younger, better players in free agency, we should implement a strategy that allows us to get younger, better players in other ways.

 

We need to trade Lohse now, while Melvin might be able to find a GM who believes that since he was decent last year, and the peripherals are there, he will bounce back. It's possible that happens, but if it doesn't and he's still sporting a 7+ ERA a month from now, he will have lost any trade value he may now have. There is a very good chance that age has caught up with him, and he won't bounce back. With the start we've had, and playoff odds right around 0%, we can't take the risk of losing a chance to trade him (assuming that chance still exists).

[monty57]

No matter the argument anyone makes here it will not change those people's opinions who see draft picks as the end all for building a team nor will it change the opinion of someone who is okay with giving up a draft pick for a steady, above average pitcher for 2-3 years.

 

If you go back and read the original Lohse signing thread I was hardcore against it and said some very mean things about him and the Brewers organization. However, watching him pitch has changed my mind. If I look at it as simply the numbers Lohse out up, he was worth the money and the pick. When considering the fact that it didn't even lead to a Brewer's playoff appearance, though, it maybe wasn't the best use of resources. Not that I have any faith in this organization that they would have drafted the right player and developed him correctly though.

I don't know about that. They have been drafting pretty well for a few years now. Starting in about 2012 the draft started to turn for us. They picked up Arcia in 2011, I think.

 

Coincidentally, Brewer drafts started getting better when the new CBA came out, disallowing teams from throwing a bunch of money into the draft to get better players. The Brewers could have taken advantage of this tactic while it existed, but instead put all of their available funds into the MLB roster so that we could have important pieces like Gagne instead of wasting the money getting talented guys in the draft. Instead, the Brewers' strategy was to target "signability" picks and we see how that worked out.

 

Melvin was one of the biggest critics of the previous system, which allowed small market teams like the Pirates to snag a lot of talent later in the drafts. His complaining was answered, and now that there is a "pool" of money for each team, and teams like the Pirates can't pour excess money into the draft, the Brewers are doing better. I wish that instead of complaining he would have just taken advantage of the system as it was set up.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Exhibit A: Rick Porcello, at the age of 26 and of a career 4.30 ERA and 5.6 K/9, signed a 6-year, $116M contract with Boston this past offseason.

 

 

Still absolutely dumbfounded by that. Would have been somewhat understandable if he had blown the doors off the league this past year, but he did not. He was somewhat better than his career numbers, but not amazingly so. Nothing to suggest he was 'breaking out' or anything.

[logan82]

I really wish the Lohse deal had worked out better for us. Hopefully it still might.

[torts]

I realize that Lind is probably gone this summer, but MAN, is it nice to have a productive 1B both on the field and at bat for a change.

[reillymcshane]

I realize that Lind is probably gone this summer, but MAN, is it nice to have a productive 1B both on the field and at bat for a change.

Amen. The last two years have been so frustrating.

[MrTPlush]

Orlando Arcia was signed out of Venezuela...not really a guy we drafted.

[brewcrewdue80]

I know the Brewers are playing better baseball and the team appears to be capable to go on a winning record to maybe pull in to that final wildcard slot. Thus making it seem the team should not be open for business.

But. Milwaukee is like many other teams struggling who still are ahead of them in the standings. Washington has yet to experience Anthony Tendon play 1game. Miami lost Yelich in their poor start who's returned, besides having a closer blow 3games who's now removed. Pittsburgh had their poor start last season, it's been a poor start for Andrew McCutchen who's turning it around. Those are just the 3 wildcard potential teams the Brewers have to overcome.

 

Then there's the Pitching staff. One, they're underachieving giving up HRs at an alarming rate. Two they are doing this with majority of games played at Home. Three, it's been over 6months now of ML pitching that the Brewers staff have defied the odds against injury. That's incredible in this TJ day and age.

 

Too climb back to 86wins maybe in to a wildcard spot? The Pitchers not only have to remain healthy, they have to overachieve in performance. Then this team has to also go on the road and play well above .500. Its be different if this start was reversed Away games played to Home games.

There isn't some young influx of batting talent to be added in depth. Same with pitching. I just don't believe the team will avoid a major injury the rest of the season.

So even with the better play and getting out of worst record in baseball, the team should still be Open for business. Everyone is available except Lucroy and Nelson. And I say Lucroy because in his thread I don't believe any team who needs him can give back Milw a correct return.

 

Just for w/l records This is an example of what Milw would have to do to get to just 86 wins:

Go 34-25 at Home

Go 40-29 on the road.

 

Let's give them slightly better at home 2wins vs the road to be a little more realistic

36-23

38-31

 

That is what it's going to take if 86wins nets a playoff spot. Now they are about to embark on a 10game road trip. 5-5 or 6-4 is a must or it's even bleaker. @NYM @DET @Atl.... way to travel east, northwest, then south. Couldn't it have gone east, east, south?

 

Looking at the schedule it does have Milw play @Stl @Pitts and home vs Wash by June 14th. 10games vs the Playoff contenders that should either put a nail in the coffin on the season at that point or give the Brewers the inclination they can get in the playoffs. 30games to play to that point. 18-12 or better you're in it. 16-14 or worse you're selling.

[reillymcshane]

Milwaukee's problem was that over the past few seasons we've put together a team that most sources would have pegged as around .500ish. It's not good enough to win, but not bad enough to make you blow the thing up. Ownership needed to either go all in and spend more money - or have the stones to start over. We took neither path, and ended up with mediocrity.

 

I can't fault a team for willfully losing money - even if it is to help the team win. It's bad business. And I can't fault them for not blowing up the team - who wants to go through a rebuild? That takes years - and isn't guaranteed by any means.

 

So we have the middle ground. And thus the continuing float in mediocrity. We end up with too many bad/aging/fading/never good players, insufficient depth and few resources to address problems that arise during the season. Sure, every year if we squint hard enough we can see the Wild Card, but it's a lot harder than it seems to get from 81 to 88 wins.

 

This path can, very easily, be followed into 2016. We can hang on to Lind, K-Rod, Garza and Gomez, count on a full season of Lucroy, a healthier Braun, etc. Maybe add a free agent or two. .500 isn't crazy. But is it crazy to keep going down the same path, which has netted us little in the long run - and promises to keep us on the same path for years to come?

[logan82]

Orlando Arcia was signed out of Venezuela...not really a guy we drafted.

I know that. The point was that the Brewers were improving in identifying talent.

[reillymcshane]

Ken Rosenthal has a really good column about the Brewers (as well as Reds) situations.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/milwaukee-brewers-cincinnati-reds-need-to-retool-now-to-keep-up-in-future-in-nl-central-051315

 

I say it's good because I agree with him.

 

"So, if you're the Brewers and Reds, do you make yet another futile attempt at trying to compete as you fall further behind your division rivals? Or, do you acknowledge the uncomfortable reality of your position, and embark upon the long road to recovery?

 

The answer should be clear.

 

For the Brewers, it means listening to trade offers for every marketable veteran, including Lucroy."

[splitterpfj]

I agree with what Rosenthal is saying in that article, both Milwaukee and Cincinnati are behind the three other teams - on the field, and in the minor leagues. That's the problem, right there, it isn't just that both teams are hoping guys will bounce back, etc, it's that the teams they're chasing have more coming than they do...a double-whammy.

 

I would absolutely field offers on anyone the Brewers have right now, that doesn't mean you have to trade everybody, but there's no reason not to look for the best deal, no matter who it is.

 

You would think Gomez, Lucroy and Segura have the most value, so go ahead and prioritize. Gomez should have his most trade value during this season, because he's only signed for one more. In theory, he should go first. Lucroy could wait until next winter, because he's still controlled for multiple seasons beyond that, I wouldn't expect his value to fall much, if the offer isn't there during this season.

 

Segura is a different category for me - if he'll sign an extension, I'm fine with him staying right here. Even if he won't, I think the team could wait a full year before they get serious about dealing him. Segura's both young and good, and he plays a position that can be tough to fill - there will be demand, now or later. I'm fine with the team signing him, or keeping him here until Orlando Arcia is in place.

[logan82]

No matter which way they go, it wouldn't be shocking to see a ss moved over the winter.

[bill hAll Star]

No matter which way they go, it wouldn't be shocking to see a ss moved over the winter.

 

Did you mean to put that space in there or not?

[logan82]

The world may never know.

[monty57]

Segura is a different category for me - if he'll sign an extension, I'm fine with him staying right here. Even if he won't, I think the team could wait a full year before they get serious about dealing him. Segura's both young and good, and he plays a position that can be tough to fill - there will be demand, now or later. I'm fine with the team signing him, or keeping him here until Orlando Arcia is in place.

 

The Brewers have H. Gomez, who has actually looked decent at SS at the MLB level. Gomez was a decent prospect who had some injuries. He's healthy now, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him perform as well as Segura going forward. Plus they have Sardinas and Arcia both at-or-near MLB ready in the minors. This is really the position where the Brewers have the most depth, so if someone is willing to give us a big return for Segura, he should be dealt.

 

As to the extension, they went down that road with him, and he didn't want to extend. Glad they took their shot, as I really like extending good pre-arby guys, but if the player's intention is to play it year-to-year to free agency, the team has to accept that and make their plans accordingly.

[FVBrewerFan]

And they have Rivera who's numbers have been outstanding since the middle of last season. So yea, at some point they need to make some decisions. Key is not to just give someone away because you have depth there.

[wildcat2237]

And they have Rivera who's numbers have been outstanding since the middle of last season. So yea, at some point they need to make some decisions. Key is not to just give someone away because you have depth there.

 

Rivera has a line of .322 .366 .452 .818

 

I never thought we would see that from Rivera at any level much less AA. Only negative is that he's 23.

[LouisEly]

Coincidentally, Brewer drafts started getting better when the new CBA came out, disallowing teams from throwing a bunch of money into the draft to get better players. The Brewers could have taken advantage of this tactic while it existed, but instead put all of their available funds into the MLB roster so that we could have important pieces like Gagne instead of wasting the money getting talented guys in the draft. Instead, the Brewers' strategy was to target "signability" picks and we see how that worked out.

 

Melvin was one of the biggest critics of the previous system, which allowed small market teams like the Pirates to snag a lot of talent later in the drafts. His complaining was answered, and now that there is a "pool" of money for each team, and teams like the Pirates can't pour excess money into the draft, the Brewers are doing better. I wish that instead of complaining he would have just taken advantage of the system as it was set up.

You have a point with Brewers drafts improving with the new CBA. However, I disagree with your stance on the Pirates and Brewers. It was an easy decision for the Pirates; they were a bad team then (99 losses in 2009, 105 losses in 2010, 90 losses in 2011) and it would have been pointless to put money into the major league team. But the Brewers were contending for the first time in almost 30 years. They didn't have the resources to do both. They chose to invest in the ML team in an effort to "go for it". From a business standpoint, they thought that contending and winning would yield greater revenue to be able to reinvest in the franchise in the future. Yes, you can pick apart individual transactions such as Gagne and play the would've-should've game, but the point is that they had to choose one or the other. They couldn't do both.

 

Now the tables are turned. The Pirates were contending the last two years for the first time in 22 years. If the same draft system was in place, would the Pirates have invested in draft picks the last two years with their limited resources? I don't think so.

[monty57]

Coincidentally, Brewer drafts started getting better when the new CBA came out, disallowing teams from throwing a bunch of money into the draft to get better players. The Brewers could have taken advantage of this tactic while it existed, but instead put all of their available funds into the MLB roster so that we could have important pieces like Gagne instead of wasting the money getting talented guys in the draft. Instead, the Brewers' strategy was to target "signability" picks and we see how that worked out.

 

Melvin was one of the biggest critics of the previous system, which allowed small market teams like the Pirates to snag a lot of talent later in the drafts. His complaining was answered, and now that there is a "pool" of money for each team, and teams like the Pirates can't pour excess money into the draft, the Brewers are doing better. I wish that instead of complaining he would have just taken advantage of the system as it was set up.

You have a point with Brewers drafts improving with the new CBA. However, I disagree with your stance on the Pirates and Brewers. It was an easy decision for the Pirates; they were a bad team then (99 losses in 2009, 105 losses in 2010, 90 losses in 2011) and it would have been pointless to put money into the major league team. But the Brewers were contending for the first time in almost 30 years. They didn't have the resources to do both. They chose to invest in the ML team in an effort to "go for it". From a business standpoint, they thought that contending and winning would yield greater revenue to be able to reinvest in the franchise in the future. Yes, you can pick apart individual transactions such as Gagne and play the would've-should've game, but the point is that they had to choose one or the other. They couldn't do both.

 

Now the tables are turned. The Pirates were contending the last two years for the first time in 22 years. If the same draft system was in place, would the Pirates have invested in draft picks the last two years with their limited resources? I don't think so.

 

The Brewers didn't sign players they drafted when they were bad like Garciaparra and Giambi, so it wasn't only when they were good. When they were good, I would guess that they could have trimmed $1MM off the MLB roster without hurting the team much every year in order to draft better players if they wanted to put some emphasis on the future, but that would have gone against everything Attanasio has done. I think that you can certainly put resources into both a good MLB roster and the draft, and in listening to Pirates executives I absolutely think that they would still be focusing resources on the draft if the previous system were still in place. I'd be shocked if the Pirates ever go "all in," which is why I think they will be an interesting team to watch to see if they can be a continual playoff team for the long-term using that strategy.

 

But to the example of Gagne, these are the types of "opportunity costs" that exist on these deals. I hear people say "I don't mind that deal because it's just money," or "...because it's short-term," but that money could have been used elsewhere. Melvin/Attanasio seem to think that if there is money to spend, and if they have some talent on the roster, all available funds must go to the MLB payroll, as if there is a 1:1 correlation between spending money and winning. There is always a lot of wasted money on Melvin's MLB rosters (I'm sure he's not alone in this), so I definitely think that a little more fiscal responsibility would have allowed the Brewers to think both "now" and "later."

[TheCrew07]

I think Monty hit on the key concept that we've been beating around for a couple of years now, but phrased it in a nice way.

 

Why does it have to be "now" or "later"? I've never really understood that. Why isn't it possible to win now and build for the future at the same time? If you give up a player here or there the MLB roster isn't significantly impacted and you've brought back more talent into the organization.

 

I'll go back to the mythical Hardy trade (the off season before being dealt for Gomez) one more time:

 

If you assume Hardy is a 4 WAR player for a season and you replace him with a young SS who's a 2 WAR player, then all you need is a 2 WAR pitcher in that deal and you've broke even in that first year. It's reasonable to expect young players to ascend so maybe both those young players are 3 WAR players the following year, and now we're way ahead. The year after maybe a 3 and 4 WAR respectively... and so on.

 

Far too often people will focus on the loss in production between Hardy and in this case Escobar, and argue that the MLB team just got worse and "you can't do that when you are trying to contend". However if the young pitcher replaces a MLB pitcher who's 0 WAR or worse then 2 holes are being plugged for the next 6 years. So if you look at the 2009 Brewers and replace Hardy with Escobar and then any of the bad pitchers: Looper, Suppan, or Parra with someone like Buchholz as a team the Brewers would be at least as good in 2009 and better in 2010, 2011... maybe making the trade dominoes fall a different way.

 

It doesn't matter what player you trade away if you get enough value back to make the team (as a whole) better. It's about total wins given up vs total wins acquired. Selling shouldn't be viewed as "giving up" but rather re-positioning talent. It's no different than say sacrificing your bishop and a pawn to nab the opponent's queen in chess. The game isn't lost with a temporary downgrade in talent if you gain a long-term advantage.

 

And please don't get hung up on Buchholz as the pitching example, I know he's been brutal the last 2 years and had surgery. I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between what the "perception" and "reality" really is. I'm just using real players to give my argument "faces" if you will.