Open for business (part 2)

[MrTPlush]

Brewers listen to offers on every single player...every team listens.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure where the 'the Brewers won't listen to offers on Segura' stuff is coming from. Even if it's been mentioned in an article I missed, the Brewers' front office has a long history of saying that they're 'not interested in moving so-and-so' followed by a trade of that player less than a week later.

 

The Lucroy comment in the article yesterday seemed to me to be Tom writing his opinion, but I certainly could be wrong.

 

Or not making a big move then suddenly we have Lohse/Garza. Anything a GM says should taken with a grain of salt.

 

The only thing I have seen is that they are unlikely to trade these players and aren't looking to trade them. Which is exactly what I would expect coming from any organization. No need to shop players with 3 more years of control left. Let people come to you.

[BeerFan]

I don't think the Brewers are gonna be very busy at the deadline. It's after the deadline during the waiver period where guys like broxton and lohse will get moved, probably for nothing more than a lower level prospect.

[adambr2]

 

The Lucroy comment in the article yesterday seemed to me to be Tom writing his opinion, but I certainly could be wrong.

 

My problem with Tom's opinion (and I e-mailed him about it) is that it doesn't make any sense on a logical level. Lucroy is under contract through 2017 with the option. Even the most optimistic of fans will likely admit that turning this around by 2017 is highly unlikely. So barring an extension (given his age and position, not the ideal option IMO), he will be gone by the time we are competitive again. So in direct contradiction to Tom H, there's actually no upside in NOT trading him.

 

My hope is that he meant there's no upside in trading him right NOW, as that makes more sense given his limited production this year. But that's not how it came off.

 

I'm willing, even eager to give up any of Lucroy, Gomez, Braun, and Segura, but under Melvin this organization has shown extreme hesitation to trade established players that are playing well and have considerable club control left. The only exception I can think of is Hardy, and even he was traded after a career worst year at a time when his value was the lowest, although that trade still ended up working out well for us.

 

The lack of a "sell high" mentality is one of my biggest criticisms of Mark and Doug. Gallardo was a step in the right direction, but his value was pretty diminished by that point. At least we got something for him. But we've had too many players in this era who were at one time worth a tremendous return of prospects walk away for nothing because we didn't recognize when it was the right time to sell. I get that it's harder to do and harder to justify when you're winning, but we're not anymore. There's no reason for us to hesitate on guys like Segura and Gomez.

[MNBrew]

Ultimately, ANY plan fails when you draft and develop the way the Brewers had since Jack Z left.

I don't get the teflon coating Jack Z. has in some folks' thinking. Who exactly did he hit on? Fielder, Weeks, Braun, Hardy, Hart, & Gallardo. That's pretty much it. And most of those were home runs before they ever played a game. Thankfully, they made up enough of a core to build a team around for a few good playoff runs.

 

Under Jack Z., the Brewers drafted lots of all-or-nothing hitters and had an absolutely miserable time developing almost any decent pitchers. In all, it's really those 6 guys named that give Jack Z. his reputation & any credibility. Beyond that.... hmmmm.....

 

In the end, I actually agree with the whole sentence IF you just remove the Jack Z. qualifier from it. The Brewers have to draft & develop LOTS better, period.

[heresrobin]

Ultimately, ANY plan fails when you draft and develop the way the Brewers had since Jack Z left.

I don't get the teflon coating Jack Z. has in some folks' thinking. Who exactly did he hit on? Fielder, Weeks, Braun, Hardy, Hart, & Gallardo. That's pretty much it. And most of those were home runs before they ever played a game. Thankfully, they made up enough of a core to build a team around for a few good playoff runs.

 

Under Jack Z., the Brewers drafted lots of all-or-nothing hitters and had an absolutely miserable time developing almost any decent pitchers. In all, it's really those 6 guys named that give Jack Z. his reputation & any credibility. Beyond that.... hmmmm.....

 

In the end, I actually agree with the whole sentence IF you just remove the Jack Z. qualifier from it. The Brewers have to draft & develop LOTS better, period.

 

I'm not necessarily a Jack Z apologist, but under his watch, didn't he draft Lorenzo Cain, Michael Brantley, Jonathan Lucroy, Brett Lawrie, and Jake Odorizzi?

[MNBrew]

Fair enough. But the names you added reveal all the more why the guy doesn't merit the teflon coating he still gets from many: Two significant pitchers over how many years? (and Odorizzi has yet to put it all together at the MLB level) . . . And as been noted many times, it's the farm director who makes the picks.

[Invader3K]

Fair enough. But the names you added reveal all the more why the guy doesn't merit the teflon coating he still gets from many: Two significant pitchers over how many years? (and Odorizzi has yet to put it all together at the MLB level) . . . And as been noted many times, it's the farm director who makes the picks.

 

Everyone has pretty much agreed for a while now that Jack Z. did a great job drafting hitters, but not so much with pitchers. Part of that was the organizational philosophy at the time though...back in the early to mid 2000's, the team decided to focus on drafting quality hitters first.

[Boomer5]

Ultimately, ANY plan fails when you draft and develop the way the Brewers had since Jack Z left.

I don't get the teflon coating Jack Z. has in some folks' thinking. Who exactly did he hit on? Fielder, Weeks, Braun, Hardy, Hart, & Gallardo. That's pretty much it. And most of those were home runs before they ever played a game. Thankfully, they made up enough of a core to build a team around for a few good playoff runs.

 

Under Jack Z., the Brewers drafted lots of all-or-nothing hitters and had an absolutely miserable time developing almost any decent pitchers. In all, it's really those 6 guys named that give Jack Z. his reputation & any credibility. Beyond that.... hmmmm.....

 

In the end, I actually agree with the whole sentence IF you just remove the Jack Z. qualifier from it. The Brewers have to draft & develop LOTS better, period.

 

I am not a Jack Z apologist. In fact I despised virtually everything that occurred during the Dean Taylor era in general. However, the core of the 2008 and 2011 teams were built off his drafts including the trades using his prospects. Was he great? No but compared to the Arnett and Covey drafts we are not even close to his track record.

[MNBrew]

Yeah, but that organizational philosophy doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to develop good pitchers -- you still have to develop well the pitchers that you draft regardless of where you drafted them. And there are lots of good pitchers over the years who weren't picked in the first couple rounds, which just points all the more to MIL's failure to develop much of any pitching under Jack Z.

[TheCrew07]

Right so if you aren't able sign/draft it and then develop pitching, then you have trade for it, only the Brewers didn't.

 

I'm not buying the idea that this situation is all the doing of the various Scouting Directors the Brewers have had. DM and MA were certainly aware the position the organization was in, they were just chasing different goals, they haven't been looking to build for years, they've simply been looking to patch the roster.

 

I don't care for finger pointing trying to lump more blame on one party vs another, there's plenty of blame to go around. Melvin isn't a genius... he's just a very average GM who's operated the same way through 2 long tenures with different organizations.

 

I really don't believe that it should be very hard to see that the same operating patterns have continually repeated over the years. He has a formula, Mark A wants to win, that's the driving factor behind every decision. It's not that the Brewers haven't had other options on the table, it's that they repeatedly chose this path.

 

These issues permeate every level of the organization and my biggest fear is that Melvin transitions to a different job and they promote someone else from within who's basically going to utilize the same template. Significant change requires a change of direction, not swapping out the players and applying the same strategies with more "vigor" or whatever adjective you choose. The fundamental theory of the organization has been flawed, from Mark A on down, and there's really no excusing it away or pointing the finger at his subordinates. He's retained Melvin, Doug hired the people underneath them, they are both ultimately responsible for everything that happens with the team.

 

Attanasio is a brilliant money man but he's out of his element when trying to evaluate talent, he needs to hire a strong GM and get out of the way.

[Boomer5]

Right so if you aren't able sign/draft it and then develop pitching, then you have trade for it, only the Brewers didn't.

 

I'm not buying the idea that this situation is all the doing of the various Scouting Directors the Brewers have had. DM and MA were certainly aware the position the organization was in, they were just chasing different goals, they haven't been looking to build for years, they've simply been looking to patch the roster.

 

I don't care for finger pointing trying to lump more blame on one party vs another, there's plenty of blame to go around. Melvin isn't a genius... he's just a very average GM who's operated the same way through 2 long tenures with different organizations.

 

I really don't believe that it should be very hard to see that the same operating patterns have continually repeated over the years. He has a formula, Mark A wants to win, that's the driving factor behind every decision. It's not that the Brewers haven't had other options on the table, it's that they repeatedly chose this path.

 

These issues permeate every level of the organization and my biggest fear is that Melvin transitions to a different job and they promote someone else from within who's basically going to utilize the same template. Significant change requires a change of direction, not swapping out the players and applying the same strategies with more "vigor" or whatever adjective you choose. The fundamental theory of the organization has been flawed, from Mark A on down, and there's really no excusing it away or pointing the finger at his subordinates. He's retained Melvin, Doug hired the people underneath them, they are both ultimately responsible for everything that happens with the team.

 

Attanasio is a brilliant money man but he's out of his element when trying to evaluate talent, he needs to hire a strong GM and get out of the way.

 

In other words, he is an owner who made his money outside of baseball who now thinks he is a baseball man.

 

Its easy to fall into the Herb style of ownership, just keep the team competitive year after year to keep the gate up and pray for a few break outs to bring in a play off run.

 

I still go to the main issue: In baseball, no plan will ever work, even if you are the Yankees, if you dont INVEST to strive for a top notch farm system/pipeline from top to bottom.

[JohnBriggs12]

Sure, the "compete every year" strategy can work. Just ask the Cardinals and Giants among others. Problem is, of course, the smaller the team salary the more difficult it is to pull off. Margin for error is much smaller. You better have a great farm system year in, year out. You need to hit on virtually every FA move. Ditto on trades.

 

I have no problem with this strategy when they had the core of Fielder, Braun, Weeks, Hart, eventually Lucroy. But it should have been clear after that last run with Fielder that it was time to rebuild, not keep trying to plug in holes. When you do it on your own terms, you're more likely to get better value back...as opposed to now when they're forced to sell and everyone knows it.

 

How was Fielder leaving the Brewers any different than Pujols leaving the Cardinals? Sure they have the ability to pay more for players, but the fact is they don't waste what they have. Who was the last real bust the Cardinals paid any significant money to? Cards have great farm system? How is that? They aren't drafting high and they aren't trading off assets for other teams gems.

 

The Cardinals are better because their front office is smarter and their player development staff is light years ahead of the Brewers. Brewers tried the build it from the ground up approach in the early 2000's. What did they get from it? A wild card berth in 2008 and a division title in 2011. Whoppee! That's about all we can expect for the next 3-4 years of agony during which a lot of Brewer fans will die off spending their last few years on earth watching a 100 loss team. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

Besides all that, a wholesale dumping of players now, most of whom are at their lowest ebb in value, just compounds the error.

 

This team needs to A. Draft better B. Develop players better and C. Stop signing aging FA to their last big contracts and concentrate the limited resources on talent that's in their primes and producing.

[Thurston Fluff]

The Cardinals are better because their front office is smarter and their player development staff is light years ahead of the Brewers.

 

You don't think having more money to put into anything they want helped? A lack of resources does hurt minor league player development and amateur drafting. Hard to expect a team who has half the resources of another to produce the same results. We can put more of our resources into it but that comes at the expense of putting it in other areas. When virtually every team has more money than you they can outspend you at any front they choose and there is nothing you can do about it.

I could very easily see a team like the Brewers skimping on international scouting if they thought they couldn't land any decent prospects anyway. So we were at a disadvantage right there with nothing that could be done to help it so they invested in other areas. That can offset some of the damage done but it isn't the same as spending more on both. Now that the rules have changed we are starting to see them add a presence in some of those countries. But if that comes at the expense of scouting here in the US or player development is it going to help? That has to be especially tough when the major league payroll is maxed out by trying to maintain a competitive team. Which goes back to the problem of whether we can actually manage to continually field competitive teams without going through a rebuild phase. Just because the Cardinals can do it doesn't mean we can. We simply may not have the resources they have to pull it off. The reality of the situation seems to suggest we may have to change the way we look at building a successful franchise to fit the reality of what our team can realistically do.

[Boomer5]

The Cardinals are better because their front office is smarter and their player development staff is light years ahead of the Brewers.

 

You don't think having more money to put into anything they want helped? A lack of resources does hurt minor league player development and amateur drafting. Hard to expect a team who has half the resources of another to produce the same results. We can put more of our resources into it but that comes at the expense of putting it in other areas. When virtually every team has more money than you they can outspend you at any front they choose and there is nothing you can do about it.

I could very easily see a team like the Brewers skimping on international scouting if they thought they couldn't land any decent prospects anyway. So we were at a disadvantage right there with nothing that could be done to help it so they invested in other areas. That can offset some of the damage done but it isn't the same as spending more on both. Now that the rules have changed we are starting to see them add a presence in some of those countries. But if that comes at the expense of scouting here in the US or player development is it going to help? That has to be especially tough when the major league payroll is maxed out by trying to maintain a competitive team. Which goes back to the problem of whether we can actually manage to continually field competitive teams without going through a rebuild phase. Just because the Cardinals can do it doesn't mean we can. We simply may not have the resources they have to pull it off. The reality of the situation seems to suggest we may have to change the way we look at building a successful franchise to fit the reality of what our team can realistically do.

 

While its true the playing field isnt level, had we just not signed Lohse and invested his money in the scouting and development and the draft pick was used correctly, we would be much closer to being competitive.

[monty57]

The Cardinals are better because their front office is smarter and their player development staff is light years ahead of the Brewers.

 

You don't think having more money to put into anything they want helped? A lack of resources does hurt minor league player development and amateur drafting. Hard to expect a team who has half the resources of another to produce the same results. We can put more of our resources into it but that comes at the expense of putting it in other areas. When virtually every team has more money than you they can outspend you at any front they choose and there is nothing you can do about it.

I could very easily see a team like the Brewers skimping on international scouting if they thought they couldn't land any decent prospects anyway. So we were at a disadvantage right there with nothing that could be done to help it so they invested in other areas. That can offset some of the damage done but it isn't the same as spending more on both. Now that the rules have changed we are starting to see them add a presence in some of those countries. But if that comes at the expense of scouting here in the US or player development is it going to help? That has to be especially tough when the major league payroll is maxed out by trying to maintain a competitive team. Which goes back to the problem of whether we can actually manage to continually field competitive teams without going through a rebuild phase. Just because the Cardinals can do it doesn't mean we can. We simply may not have the resources they have to pull it off. The reality of the situation seems to suggest we may have to change the way we look at building a successful franchise to fit the reality of what our team can realistically do.

 

While its true the playing field isnt level, had we just not signed Lohse and invested his money in the scouting and development and the draft pick was used correctly, we would be much closer to being competitive.

 

Without doing a bunch of research, I'd say we probably have 10% of our payroll every year tied up in "dead money." That's probably not all that uncommon in today's MLB, but with the competitive disadvantage we have as a small market team, we need to be more efficient than our competition if we want to have any chance at sustained success. Simply changing Attanasio's cell number and not giving it to Boras would go a long way in that regard, as we need to get away from signing aging free agents and paying them for their past performance and not their future potential.

[paul253]

This year has been absolutely miserable for the Brewers. Literally everything that could wrong has, and I am not just talking about on the field. It's seasons like this that just get me irritated as you know what at Melvin. Gomez should have already been traded. So should Lohse. Melvin, as usual, has missed the opportunity to trade these guys when their value was highest. Now Lohse is untradable and Gomez's value has plummeted because he can't stay healthy.

 

Additionally, Garza should not have been signed. He's going to turn into the next Suppan/Lohse. We claim he's available now, mainly because nobody wants him, but we all know darn well if he was pitching well Melvin wouldn't trade him because he still has two years left on his contract.

 

Then you have Lucroy. At first I was thinking we should trade him but would be ok with it if we didn't. Now, as others have pointed out, it's clear that keeping him is pointless. You're not going to extend him, and if do you'll probably end up regretting it. We're clearly not going to be a winning team during the remainder of his contract. So what is the point of hanging to him? Melvin should be actively shopping him, not trying to play it cool with his usual "well I'm not motivated to trade him". He sure as heck ought to be motivated to move him.

 

Finally, Segura. It's not necessary to move him now but if not now definitely in the offseason. We have 3 major league ready shortstops and gaping holes at first base, third base and starting pitcher. Common sense would suggest you trade from a position of strength to try to improve a position of weakness. If you don't move Segura then move Sardinas. You probably won't get as much but you'd clear the logjam a bit and probably buy another year before you have to make a trade.

 

Ultimately if at least 2 of Segura, Lucroy and Gomez are not traded before next season then I think Melvin will have missed yet another opportunity to improve the long term outlook of the franchise. I doubt he's back next season anyway but I'll just say right now if he is I will have lost even more faith in this franchise then I already have.

[Thurston Fluff]

 

While its true the playing field isnt level, had we just not signed Lohse and invested his money in the scouting and development and the draft pick was used correctly, we would be much closer to being competitive.

 

It's not as simple as putting one player's money into scouting and player development and everything will be better. But I understand your point. Problem is if we had put that money into player development and such and we get the better players we still have to pay them when they get good. So we either let them go and start over or pay them. If we pay them that money has to come from somewhere. If we don't it's pretty hard to maintain a competitive team when you always have to depend in young developing players. Perhaps it is possible to maintain a good team like that but I don't see any teams doing that. Not even the Cardinals. After all it isn't like they are winning with the $100 million payroll limit we have. They spend more on their major league roster than we do and I am quite sure they outspend us on player development while doing so.

Then you can look at the Cubs. They are full of young talent and built their team through the draft and develop model. Yet their payroll is higher than ours. Almost as high as the Cardinals is. Despite doing everything the right way and building one of the best farms systems in the game they failed to develop enough pitching to make all their efforts to build a good offense useful. Sound familiar? So they had to buy an elite pitcher to supplement their incredibly good draft and develop effort. Something we could not do when we were in their shoes. We had to give up some of our good talent to get one. Even then we could only rent one for a year or two. If they couldn't afford to buy theirs on the free agent market they would not be nearly as competitive for nearly as long as they can be now.

Pittsburgh is doing a very nice job right now so maybe there is some hope. Yet what they have done so far isn't any more than we did over a five year stretch when our team was in it's prime. Time will tell if they can hold it together. If they can they would be the model we look to if we want to maintain success without going through rebuilds every five years or so.

[FVBrewerFan]

Sure, the "compete every year" strategy can work. Just ask the Cardinals and Giants among others. Problem is, of course, the smaller the team salary the more difficult it is to pull off. Margin for error is much smaller. You better have a great farm system year in, year out. You need to hit on virtually every FA move. Ditto on trades.

 

I have no problem with this strategy when they had the core of Fielder, Braun, Weeks, Hart, eventually Lucroy. But it should have been clear after that last run with Fielder that it was time to rebuild, not keep trying to plug in holes. When you do it on your own terms, you're more likely to get better value back...as opposed to now when they're forced to sell and everyone knows it.

 

How was Fielder leaving the Brewers any different than Pujols leaving the Cardinals? Sure they have the ability to pay more for players, but the fact is they don't waste what they have. Who was the last real bust the Cardinals paid any significant money to? Cards have great farm system? How is that? They aren't drafting high and they aren't trading off assets for other teams gems.

 

The Cardinals are better because their front office is smarter and their player development staff is light years ahead of the Brewers. Brewers tried the build it from the ground up approach in the early 2000's. What did they get from it? A wild card berth in 2008 and a division title in 2011. Whoppee! That's about all we can expect for the next 3-4 years of agony during which a lot of Brewer fans will die off spending their last few years on earth watching a 100 loss team. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

Besides all that, a wholesale dumping of players now, most of whom are at their lowest ebb in value, just compounds the error.

 

This team needs to A. Draft better B. Develop players better and C. Stop signing aging FA to their last big contracts and concentrate the limited resources on talent that's in their primes and producing.

 

Pretty sure you just agreed with me, but may have not realized this.

[monty57]

Pittsburgh is doing a very nice job right now so maybe there is some hope. Yet what they have done so far isn't any more than we did over a five year stretch when our team was in it's prime. Time will tell if they can hold it together. If they can they would be the model we look to if we want to maintain success without going through rebuilds every five years or so.

 

The difference, and why I am interested to see where Pittsburgh goes, is that over the last few playoff seasons, Melvin/Attanasio would have traded guys like Cole, Taillon, etc to give themselves a better shot at winning in one year. Pittsburgh got a lot of flak for their refusal to trade away their top minor leaguers, but that decision is why they still have a good farm system with elite prospects while they are maintaining a playoff-caliber MLB team. I doubt the Pirates will ever "go all in" or play for a "window," which is exactly how I wish Milwaukee would have done things back when they were in that situation.

[bill hAll Star]

I'm not sure that Melvin would have traded a Cole-type guy. The Brewers have not had that type of player, but I don't think Doug/Mark are into trading A or A+ prospects very often. LaPorta may have been on the surface but obviously he was a huge bust. Brantley/Cain were B- 4th OF prospects that blew up, Lawrie was probably a B+ prospect that slightly busted, Odorizzi probably a B+ pitching prospect.

 

Anyways, the Brewers didn't ever have an ace prospect, but I doubt Doug/Mark would have dealt that.

[Thurston Fluff]

Pittsburgh is doing a very nice job right now so maybe there is some hope. Yet what they have done so far isn't any more than we did over a five year stretch when our team was in it's prime. Time will tell if they can hold it together. If they can they would be the model we look to if we want to maintain success without going through rebuilds every five years or so.

 

The difference, and why I am interested to see where Pittsburgh goes, is that over the last few playoff seasons, Melvin/Attanasio would have traded guys like Cole, Taillon, etc to give themselves a better shot at winning in one year. Pittsburgh got a lot of flak for their refusal to trade away their top minor leaguers, but that decision is why they still have a good farm system with elite prospects while they are maintaining a playoff-caliber MLB team. I doubt the Pirates will ever "go all in" or play for a "window," which is exactly how I wish Milwaukee would have done things back when they were in that situation.

 

Which is why I am interested in seeing how it plays out for them. They could be the case study that most resembles our situation but chose a different approach. I would dearly love to think we could manage continued success without major overhauls along the way.

I'm not sure that Melvin would have traded a Cole-type guy. The Brewers have not had that type of player, but I don't think Doug/Mark are into trading A or A+ prospects very often. LaPorta may have been on the surface but obviously he was a huge bust. Brantley/Cain were B- 4th OF prospects that blew up, Lawrie was probably a B+ prospect that slightly busted, Odorizzi probably a B+ pitching prospect.

 

Anyways, the Brewers didn't ever have an ace prospect, but I doubt Doug/Mark would have dealt that.

 

WE gave up some prospects everyone thought would be very good at the time. I don't think the fact they didn't pan out means they weren't viewed as Cole level players when we traded them. AS far as teams being lucky to get some guys who blossomed, when you give up a lot of decent prospects for one player you increase the odds of that happening. I don't think the Pirates did a deal like that either. Probably because they thought the likelihood of such a thing was too great.

I want to be clear I am not saying the Pirates are doing it the right way either. I just think the jury is still out on them. I hope it does work because then we know there is a way to do it. As it stands I am not so sure it is possible for teams our market size to sustain success without major rebuilds every five or so years. Though I will never blame Melvin or Mark for trying. Just for not succeeding.

[bill hAll Star]

My point I guess is that Melvin/Mark probably wouldn't have traded a #1 ace type guy.

 

Escobar almost reached the top 10 but was a defense guy. Laporta, Odorizzi, Lawrie all sit in the 60s-30s. Cain and Brantley were never ranked.

 

They did give up a lot of guys, but not any of them were assumed to be an absolute superstar like Cole.

 

By the way, slightly off topic, and I might be cherry picking the right time to say this, but it looks again as though Brantley is back to a "pretty good" OF, which is more in line with expectations. He had one season where the power surged but he's back to looking like a 10 HR, .780 guy and his defense is just OK. Cain exceeded even our lofty defensive expectations and he is a pretty good offensive player, though not great. That said, Cain has a lot of value just due to his defense.

[Thurston Fluff]

My point I guess is that Melvin/Mark probably wouldn't have traded a #1 ace type guy.

 

I think that was more a product of them not having developed any than it was sheer talent level. Even then if it would have taken giving up an ace prospect who wasn't quite ready to get an equal but proven talent who was ready to go when they needed him think they would have still pulled the trigger. The only difference is they probably wouldn't have included so many second tier prospects. I think they kind of went off script a little because they saw how close they were and decided to go for it more than maybe their original plan was. But that is only a guess.

[LouisEly]

Sure, the "compete every year" strategy can work. Just ask the Cardinals and Giants among others.

The Giants are a recent phenomena. They weren't exactly competing 2005-2008, and probably wouldn't be without the top-10 picks from those years.

 

This is why I am not disappointed with where the Brewers are now. Teams, especially moderate payroll teams, just cannot compete year in and year out, even if they do trade their players at their peak. The Cardinals gave up two recent first round picks and a recent 2nd round pick for Holliday, and none of those three panned out for the A's. A certain percentage of prospects don't pan out (see trades of Sheffield, Vaughn, Grienke, etc.) and after a certain period of time the well will run dry on trades. You have to have a run of top-10 picks, if not top-5 picks, to compete.

 

The Giants had four years of top-10 picks (Bumgarner, Posey, and Lincicum among them).

 

The Royals are riding on the success of eight years of top-10 picks.

 

The poster children for trading talent for prospects, the Rays, wouldn't have competed without David Price (#1 overall) and Evan Longoria (#3 overall). The Rays have Chris Archer as a result of Delmon Young (#1 overall); yes they traded to get him, but wouldn't have had the talent to trade w/o that #1 pick.

 

Houston is where they are because of four years of top-11 picks. What would the Cubs be without Bryant, Baez, and Schwarber?

 

I'm looking forward to a few years of top-10 picks so that the Brewers can have the next wave of talent to compete.

[TheCrew07]

I just want to add that Cain always profiled as an everyday CF, I'm sort of surprised that people forget he outplayed Gomez for the CF job prior to the Greinke trade. Gomez was simply awful, Cain's issue was his health, he appeared that he was going to be one of those snake bit players that would never stay healthy but when he's been on the field he's been above average. After Braun was through the system Cain was really the only potential 5 tool talent the Brewers had left.

 

Brantley was a tweener, not enough power for the corners, not enough range for CF when he was prospect, remarkably similar to current prospect Michael Reed. The Brewers (Reid Nichols mostly) shafted him his first 2 years of full season ball by having him DH most of the time to get his bat in the line-up... what a joke that was. I mean seriously, how hard would it have been to rotate 4 outfielders through the 3 OF positions and DH every day? At any rate everyone knew he would hit for average and take walks, the debate on the minor league forum was about how he fit without power, he was labeled 4th OF because he didn't profile to develop power. Cleveland was one of the first organizations to push an off-season weight lifting program and it's born fruit in Brantley's case. No one would have projected him to hit 20 HRs with his body type coming through the minors. Most baseball players have the frame to comfortably add 20-30 lbs of muscle without negatively impacting their flexibility or speed yet the vast majority don't pursue that extra strength... because that old adage which people still believe about baseball players shouldn't lift weights, which is completely false. I would agree that no athlete should body build or power lift, but that's a separate discussion.