Domingo Santana Called Up; Cravy to DL [LATEST: Santana starts at CF in debut, 8.21.15]

[CheezWizHed]

How did he look in the field tonight?

Better than Mark Kotsay! And I didn't have to watch the game to say that.

[DocLuna7]

Let's trade Davis, Medeiros, Lara, and Harrison in the off-season for prospects we can trade in 2019 for prospects we can trade in 2022.

 

Not sure if this is suppose to be blue but Harrison, Lara, Medeiros are all 17-19 and not above low A ball.... If we were to do this now, we'd be selling extremely low on them, have to give each 2 more seasons at least before they start to assert themselves as legit top prospects that they have potential to be

 

Pretty sure that was meant as sarcasm.

[FVBrewerFan]

Yes, I think it was sarcasm. He doesn't want young talented players under team control for 6 years like Santana, Hader, Phillips, etc. Guessing, but I think he rather have Gomez, Lucroy, that type of player.

[tmwiese55]

I think it was meant to be a jab at the folks who always want to be trading for the future rather than actually trying to win.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I think it was meant to be a jab at the folks who always want to be trading for the future rather than actually trying to win.

 

 

The fallacy in that argument is that the people who want to recycle talent are seen as not wanting to win. That is false. The argument is that you want to recycle the talent before it gets old and expensive.

[monty57]

I think it was meant to be a jab at the folks who always want to be trading for the future rather than actually trying to win.

 

 

The fallacy in that argument is that the people who want to recycle talent are seen as not wanting to win. That is false. The argument is that you want to recycle the talent before it gets old and expensive.

 

That, plus that theory calls for doing the opposite of what he's saying. People who want to "win now" are ones who would call for trading away the guys he mentioned in order to add a veteran. The guys (like me) who he is trying to rip want more young, talented guys like he's saying we would trade away.

[FVBrewerFan]

Although I don't agree with the logic, I do understand where he's coming from. I find myself trying to explain the strategy to family and friends who don't understand (or want to understand) the "big picture" of how a small market team can compete. And not just going "all in" one year, rather being a contender for an extended period of time.

 

They see Sexson, Sabathia, Fielder, Greinke, Gomez, Gallardo, etc. get traded or not re-signed and pick up guys they never heard of. I don't get into detail with most people, I keep it simple by saying "we're trying to do what KC, Houston, Pitt, etc. have done." Does it always work? No. Can it be done quickly? Usually not. But it is still the only way to be a true contender as a small market team. Infuse your farm system with as much talent as possible.

[tmwiese55]

I totally get why one would make that type of sarcastic joke. I feel there is a lot of people on here who greatly over value prospects and seem to want to be in perpetual re-build mode. Kind of like why trade for all these prospects if you're just going to trade them for other prospects if they end up being good rather than keeping them and going in win-now mode. I get the argument

[reillymcshane]

And virtually no one says we should trade every single player once they start approaching free agency. And virtually no one is saying you should never sign a free agent. Building from within delivers flexibility. It helps a team avoid overpaying for average talent (Looper, Suppan, Wolf, Lohse, Garza). And it helps a team avoid being caught with expensive players in the long term contracts who's production is declining.

 

Pittsburgh has signed players like Martin, Burnett and Liriano. They've given extensions to Marte, McCutchen and others. No, they probably won't be signing a $30M a year free agent, but they've build a sustainable model. They have a lot of young talent in the minors that will eventually replace guys as they get too expensive or their production declines.

 

There does come a time where trading most of your veterans is a viable strategy. Quality players on a poor team is a luxury - especially when there's little chance that player will be part of the next winning club. If a team estimates that it will take 4 years build a winner, they are foolish to hang on to a 30 year old guy with two years left on his contract, especially if dealing him can bring potential talent with more control.

 

in the end, the team still needs to produce quality players. All the rebuilding can go down in flames if you draft badly and make poor trades.

[jerichoholicninja]

I totally get why one would make that type of sarcastic joke. I feel there is a lot of people on here who greatly over value prospects and seem to want to be in perpetual re-build mode. Kind of like why trade for all these prospects if you're just going to trade them for other prospects if they end up being good rather than keeping them and going in win-now mode. I get the argument

 

[sarcasm]If you go on the 15 year plan it works great as you get prospects exponentially. Trade a major leaguer for 2 prospects. Trade those prospects for 2 prospects each. Then trade those prospects for 2 prospects each and so on and so on. Eventually you'll have thousands of prospects![/sarcasm]

[Fear The Chorizo]

It helps to draft near the top of the 1st round for multiple years in a row - hitting on even a few players considered worthy of top 5 in the draft status gives you franchise cornerstones under team control that small markets are able to extend at somewhat reasonable prices through their prime years - for Hou, Pitt, and KC (the teams brought up earlier in this thread as examples the Brewers should mold their style after, throw in the Cubs in that mold, too), those teams were in baseball hell for years until a few of their high 1st rounders realized their potential. Milwaukee hasn't been up there in the draft consistently since Weeks, Fielder, and Braun were drafted - I believe the Brewers are headed that way again for a few seasons.

 

I think the new GM needs to strike while the iron's hot and deal Braun this offseason if he finishes with solid #'s - what better time than now to rid this organization of that contract and continue restocking the pool of young talent? Lucroy may be a good candidate for an offseason or deadline trade next year as well.

[tmwiese55]

or Hou, Pitt, and KC (the teams brought up earlier in this thread as examples the Brewers should mold their style after, throw in the Cubs in that mold, too),

 

Rewind to 2008 and other teams would have been listing us as the examples. We'll see how long they sustain it and if they win anything.

 

All everyone did by refuting the guys point by saying how we should get more prospects was prove his point. He was being a little facetious and taking it to the max to prove the point. Everyone knows a small market team needs to build through the draft to have cheap contracts, the difference is what to do once they hit on several at the same time. Many here say to trade them high and get more prospects, that's all he was saying he disagreed with.

[DuWayne Steurer]

 

Rewind to 2008 and other teams would have been listing us as the examples. We'll see how long they sustain it and if they win anything.

 

All everyone did by refuting the guys point by saying how we should get more prospects was prove his point. He was being a little facetious and taking it to the max to prove the point. Everyone knows a small market team needs to build through the draft to have cheap contracts, the difference is what to do once they hit on several at the same time. Many here say to trade them high and get more prospects, that's all he was saying he disagreed with.

 

And again, I'll point out that the strawman arguments that have been thrown out around here (even in a sarcastic manner) is that the people in favor of rebuilds "don't want to win" and only want to get prospects to trade for more prospects and never want to pay anyone.

 

These things are all false.

 

The truth of this strategy is that you have to selectively pick and choose which players you will extend (say, a McCutcheon, or a Longoria, or a Tulowitzki, or Braun)...but saying you will NEVER EXTEND ANYONE! is false. Saying that you trade prospects for more prospects is also false. While it may be a means to achieve an end, it's not the end goal.

 

Saying that acquiring prospects instead of winning is the end goal is also false. Winning is the end goal.

 

Tampa won 90 games or more in 5 years out of 6, and won an AL pennant. Obviously they had some lean years before that streak and had some high draft picks in order to do that. But they traded well, and didn't give out many ridiculous contracts, or big contracts to old, high priced FA's. Obviously the end goal is to win the WS, and they were right on the doorstep of doing that.

 

The goal is NOT TO ACQUIRE PROSPECTS in this strategy, but in fact, to win enough games to make the playoffs, and win a world series. I don't know how much more clearly those of us who espouse this strategy can be.

 

It is not the only strategy. It's not necessarily the best strategy. But for a small market team, it's certainly a workable strategy if you have patience and an ability to draft well.

[logan82]

When you are expected to be around .500 you need to trade MLB players unless you have talent coming up soon enough to make use of that MLB talent. We haven't since about 2012. I know we led the NL Central for most of 2014 bu that was buoyed by a really good month like this year has been sunk by a really bad month. Its about making a bubble of talent. Ours has been spread out all over the levels instead of concentrated in one place. The last few years has seemed like we were striving for mediocrity instead of trying to actually win.

[tmwiese55]

There others who are more extreme than your stance, wanting to trade everything. That's what he was getting at. That being said, TB doesn't really look like it will be competing for the playoffs anytime soon now that all their high picks are gone, so they went through a window just like us. Yea they've hung around mediocrity the last couple years just like we did, yet we're idiots and they're genius. Maybe they should have traded a few prospects over the years when they were in contention and they would have won, we'll never know. Yet nobody makes that argument ever on here, just that we were wrong to go for it.

[DuWayne Steurer]

There others who are more extreme than your stance, wanting to trade everything.

 

 

Who?

 

I'd like to know who wants to acquire prospects as an end-game, and not actually "win games".

 

And yes, right now, I'd absolutely like to trade everything. Braun, Lucroy, and Segura. This team was ripe for a complete blow-up. If a Tulowitzki-like deal comes along for Braun, I absolutely hope they take it, and continue to stock up with talent.

 

If someone overvalues Segura based on what he did 2 years ago, absolutely acquire talent for him, especially pitching. If someone needs catching, absolutely trade Lucroy. He's about to be 30, and in the decline phase for a catcher.

 

None of that is the end goal. It's all means to the ultimate end.

[tmwiese55]

This argument has been beaten to death in numerous threads. Some argue on here that once a guy is up and proven good but it is a year or two away from FA then they need to be traded for future prospects, they would be the ones arguing against extending Braun and for trading Fielder in 09 or 10. You seem to be in the more commonground of rebuild right now but if/when this pile of prospects hits that we should try to win the WS rather than just trade them and that there is a few of those prospects that need to be extended (like we did with Braun, Gallardo, Weeks, etc last time) and you're likely open to a trade to fill a hole at that point. I haven't seen anyone make that point in this thread but this argument has been beaten to death over the last few months and some argue that line.

 

Personally I'm fine with the rebuild right now. Lind and Lucroy have to go too eventually. Hoping Lucroy can come to next season healthy and have a really strong first few months and they clean someone out.

[JohnBriggs12]

There others who are more extreme than your stance, wanting to trade everything.

 

 

Who?

 

I'd like to know who wants to acquire prospects as an end-game, and not actually "win games".

 

And yes, right now, I'd absolutely like to trade everything. Braun, Lucroy, and Segura. This team was ripe for a complete blow-up. If a Tulowitzki-like deal comes along for Braun, I absolutely hope they take it, and continue to stock up with talent.

 

If someone overvalues Segura based on what he did 2 years ago, absolutely acquire talent for him, especially pitching. If someone needs catching, absolutely trade Lucroy. He's about to be 30, and in the decline phase for a catcher.

 

None of that is the end goal. It's all means to the ultimate end.

 

It's not ripe for a complete blow up when you have 3 very talented young starters heading into their prime value years as major leaguers who benefit from having a veteran proven catcher who happens to also be very affordable for two more seasons. There's opportunity in the fairly near term at the major league level. They dealt Gomez while his value was still very high, but we'll never know how much adding Fiers to that deal boosted the return. For Braun to return value in prospects, a lot of his contract has to be picked up by Brewers and that becomes dead money. The system now is pretty healthy in prospects and they will be drafting high next year and probably in 2017.. The need to "rebuild a system" is no longer pressing. It's time to fine tune it, to start using areas of depth to address thin areas of need.

[monty57]

Some argue on here that once a guy is up and proven good but it is a year or two away from FA then they need to be traded for future prospects, they would be the ones arguing against extending Braun and for trading Fielder in 09 or 10.

 

I'm about the only one who has recently said that I think they should have traded Fielder and Hart after the 2010 season, and that I think we'd have been much better since then if they had done this. However, I'm also one of the biggest proponents of extending players. I just think it makes the most sense to extend good, young players when they're in pre-arby and we can get the best deal, as we are transferring a lot of risk from the player to the team, so the salary can be lower. I don't really like extending guys when they're almost free agents, as you are basically paying free agent prices.

 

Building from within delivers flexibility. It helps a team avoid overpaying for average talent

 

Exactly. Let's assume a team has a $100MM budget. Let's also assume the "core" is 6-8 players and the rest of the team is filled with what you can afford for the remaining budget. If your core is filled with pre-arby guys, arby guys, and guys extended in their pre-arby years, the entire core costs under $10MM, leaving $90MM to fill in the rest of the roster. You can do a lot with that $90MM, and that's how the Brewers were built up until the 2010-11 offseason.

 

After 2010, the Brewers left this stage, and the core got expensive, with those 6-8 players eating up most of our budget. This coincided with our farm being weak from trading away a lot of talent while not trading for any prospect talent. That is why after 2011 we always had subpar players on the major league level and no depth. It's almost impossible to win in that situation.

 

The offseason prior to the 2011 season was the "franchise-changing moment," and we could very well have had several playoff appearances in the past few seasons had we not went for it in 2011. Since we made those moves, we probably should have went into rebuild even sooner than we did.

 

However, we didn't, so to take this somewhat to topic, we are where we are and we have to look forward. The trades made this year, along with the likely trades over the next year or two should give us a nice supply of young talent. We have a couple of guys in Arcia and Phillips who could be stars, a number of guys like Santana who could be average-to-good MLB players, and a group of "role players" who also provide value, especially when they're inexpensive.

 

I like what I see in Santana. He's a guy to keep an eye on, and in a year or so if we may want to offer a Lucroy-type extension to him. Guarantee him $10-12MM or so, while buying out a couple of free agent years. We get him relatively cheaply, while he knows that he's set even if he gets hurt or under-performs. There's some risk to the Brewers for doing this, but even if it bombs, the worst that happens is you are out the price of one year of a bad deal to someone like Looper or Gagne.

 

Get a few more of these guys and you have a nice core of young players who will be together for a long time. If we can also keep talent coming in from the farm, then you will have the luxury of trading away some of these guys when they still have some team control left, replacing them with the guy from the farm, and adding talent who will hopefully help you down the road. It shouldn't have to be "all in" or "rebuild," with nothing in between. Trading a good veteran player for multiple young players can (and should) be done even when you are "trying to win." It shouldn't come down to a situation where you have to trade everyone and rebuild. Reaching that point just means someone screwed up somewhere along the way.

[tmwiese55]

To be devil's advocate, maybe they should have made a few more trades and spent more money so we didn't have to start a left side of Betancourt and Mcgehee, maybe they would have won it all.

 

I agree with your main premise here though. They should be trying to get guys to take deals that buy out a few years of FA and puts them in FA around ages 30-32, then grit your teeth and let them go or trade them. The problem here is that is what they did with Lucroy, Gallardo, Hart, Weeks, Gomez and others. Fielder just wouldn't do it and of course Braun was the exception they felt to lock up long term. These two are exceptions to the rule since they were true superstars. What I mean is, they did do this. Problem of course is Hart and Weeks were not able to bring anything back at the end (production or prospects) for various reason. To re-iterate my take on this old argument. The problem has been brutal draft/development for the last 7+ years. Not the trades, extensions or signings, of course you can nitpick some but no one will ever shoot 100%. They just haven't developed much for a long stretch before what looks like something now in Nelson, Jungmann, and maybe Peralta if he rebounds.

[JohnBriggs12]

To be devil's advocate, maybe they should have made a few more trades and spent more money so we didn't have to start a left side of Betancourt and Mcgehee, maybe they would have won it all.

 

I agree with your main premise here though. They should be trying to get guys to take deals that buy out a few years of FA and puts them in FA around ages 30-32, then grit your teeth and let them go or trade them. The problem here is that is what they did with Lucroy, Gallardo, Hart, Weeks, Gomez and others. Fielder just wouldn't do it and of course Braun was the exception they felt to lock up long term. These two are exceptions to the rule since they were true superstars. What I mean is, they did do this. Problem of course is Hart and Weeks were not able to bring anything back at the end (production or prospects) for various reason. To re-iterate my take on this old argument. The problem has been brutal draft/development for the last 7+ years. Not the trades, extensions or signings, of course you can nitpick some but no one will ever shoot 100%. They just haven't developed much for a long stretch before what looks like something now in Nelson, Jungmann, and maybe Peralta if he rebounds.

 

I think you can include Davis as a player they've developed and though he's having an off year, Gennett's put up decent numbers for a 2B: .289/.321/.435, albeit in a platoon over roughly his first 1,000 career PA. The only "stars" they've developed over the past 15 years were drafted in the top 10. They last picked that high in 2005.

 

Your argument in the first paragraph doesn't hold up. Betancourt had 5 RBI and an .875 OPS in the NLCS in 2011 and Hairston, who by that time was playing 3B and not McGehee, posted .391/.440/.565 in the NLCS. They got by just fine with that left side because they had the most potent duo in baseball in the 3 and 4 spot in the order all year. They wouldn't have had that had they traded Fielder. Starting pitching is what failed them in the postseason, in particular the two they traded the core of their system for, Marcum and Greinke. If anything it was the inability to develop/draft quality starting pitching in the decade of the 2000's that did them in and they are still feeling it.

[torts]

or Hou, Pitt, and KC (the teams brought up earlier in this thread as examples the Brewers should mold their style after, throw in the Cubs in that mold, too),

 

Rewind to 2008 and other teams would have been listing us as the examples. We'll see how long they sustain it and if they win anything.

 

All everyone did by refuting the guys point by saying how we should get more prospects was prove his point. He was being a little facetious and taking it to the max to prove the point. Everyone knows a small market team needs to build through the draft to have cheap contracts, the difference is what to do once they hit on several at the same time. Many here say to trade them high and get more prospects, that's all he was saying he disagreed with.

 

so far Pittsburgh hasnt won anything beyond a wild card playin game. Houston hasnt made the playoffs yet. Kansas City is the outlier, and if they make the world series again, they'll have definitely beaten the odds and some.

 

Also, Pirates have yet to do any type of significant trade. They haven't traded any of their star prospects, they're holding everything TOO close to the chest.

[tmwiese55]

To be devil's advocate, maybe they should have made a few more trades and spent more money so we didn't have to start a left side of Betancourt and Mcgehee, maybe they would have won it all.

 

I agree with your main premise here though. They should be trying to get guys to take deals that buy out a few years of FA and puts them in FA around ages 30-32, then grit your teeth and let them go or trade them. The problem here is that is what they did with Lucroy, Gallardo, Hart, Weeks, Gomez and others. Fielder just wouldn't do it and of course Braun was the exception they felt to lock up long term. These two are exceptions to the rule since they were true superstars. What I mean is, they did do this. Problem of course is Hart and Weeks were not able to bring anything back at the end (production or prospects) for various reason. To re-iterate my take on this old argument. The problem has been brutal draft/development for the last 7+ years. Not the trades, extensions or signings, of course you can nitpick some but no one will ever shoot 100%. They just haven't developed much for a long stretch before what looks like something now in Nelson, Jungmann, and maybe Peralta if he rebounds.

 

I think you can include Davis as a player they've developed and though he's having an off year, Gennett's put up decent numbers for a 2B: .289/.321/.435, albeit in a platoon over roughly his first 1,000 career PA. The only "stars" they've developed over the past 15 years were drafted in the top 10. They last picked that high in 2005.

 

Your argument in the first paragraph doesn't hold up. Betancourt had 5 RBI and an .875 OPS in the NLCS in 2011 and Hairston, who by that time was playing 3B and not McGehee, posted .391/.440/.565 in the NLCS. They got by just fine with that left side because they had the most potent duo in baseball in the 3 and 4 spot in the order all year. They wouldn't have had that had they traded Fielder. Starting pitching is what failed them in the postseason, in particular the two they traded the core of their system for, Marcum and Greinke. If anything it was the inability to develop/draft quality starting pitching in the decade of the 2000's that did them in and they are still feeling it.

 

Way off point here, the premise was to do more to improve the team. Pick whatever you want as the moves. Also, that leftside was terrible at defense and offense all season. And in spite of good O in the playoffs it was brutal on D. If they win 1-2 more games heads up vs STL, then STL doesn't make the playoffs. Maybe you're content there and trade for another pitcher, could be anything, that was just the most obvious weakness on the squad.

 

Torts, exactly. And KC is basically going down our same path in going for it with their trades the last years. Specifically Cueto and Shields.

[trwi7]

so far Pittsburgh hasnt won anything beyond a wild card playin game.

 

Pittsburgh is very likely to make the playoffs for the third straight year. The Brewers have made the playoffs four times in 46 years.

[logan82]

so far Pittsburgh hasnt won anything beyond a wild card playin game.

 

Pittsburgh is very likely to make the playoffs for the third straight year. The Brewers have made the playoffs four times in 46 years.

Not back to back let alone 3 years in a row recently.