David Stearns named Milwaukee's new GM

[DuWayne Steurer]

Why does someone have to have "Paid dues" to be a good GM? If they are capable of doing the job, hire them. If they are the most qualified candidate, then hire them to do the job.

 

This meathead mindset that someone MUST be a former player to be in the game is why we still have dinosaurs like Kirk Gibson, Dave Stewart, Tony LaRussa, and Mike Matheny doing the things they do.

[1992casey]

I think he's "paid dues." He's worked for three different organizations plus the commissioner's office.

[jerichoholicninja]

[sarcasm]Dave Stewart "paid his dues" and has made some brilliant moves in AZ.[/sarcasm]

[RockCoCougars]

I will agree to disagree on the dues paying issue. This is his third organization in the past three years. All jobs have been in an administrative role. Has he ever gotten his hands dirty with demonstrable results in player development? I keep hearing how smart he is, but I haven't heard any specific example. Simply put, I think that Attanasio sees him as a protege. Hopefully, he doesn't turn out to be a yes man.

 

I'm also not sure that I like hearing how Melvin will be serving as a mentor due to the lack of experience. It sounds to me like turnover is going to be minimal. If you ask me, this organization needs a major shakeup in the front office. In particular, I think the entire scouting/player development department needs to be blown up. If that doesn't happen, they are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic as far as I am concerned.

 

Again, hopefully I am wrong. He might start to win me over if I see members of the old boys club (Ash, Nichols, .etc) being shown the door.

[gregmag]

"Analytical thinking" or "Moneyball" isn't about putting a pathetic team on the field and building with high draft picks"

 

No, but people are crediting Stearns with finding some of the talent in the Astros organization and this was a team that lost a whopping 324 games in a 3 year period from 2011 to 2013. Granted the losing had started even before they unloaded Pence in his prime for a bunch of prospects but that's hard to do even if you're trying and resulted in them being at the top of the draft where it doesn't take special powers to find talent. Asking fans to endure that kind of futility is brutal especially elderly fans who are "season to season" and amongst the most loyal in the sport of baseball. I'm hoping that's not in young Mr. Stearns plans but something tells me he couldn't care less about an 80 year old grandmother who tunes in Brewer broadcasts religiously to help pass the time. Just sayin.

I intend to make this the least confrontational post in the history of the Internets to begin (substantively) with the following sentence:

 

You're talking about my mom here.

 

Well, almost. She's actually 83, and my dad is 84. They watch or listen to just about every game. The thing is, they've enjoyed Brewers baseball, consistently, since the late 70s. Through all the doomed seasons, they've had fun with it. They're very smart people, and fairly knowledgeable about baseball, but they aren't obsessive. Now, when the team goes to the post-season, they get wigged-out excited just like the rest of us. But you know what they don't care about? Whether the team wins 64 or 74 or 84 games and misses the playoffs. Those extra 10 or even 20 wins, in an ultimately futile season, make them a little happier on those 10 or 20 nights, but not that much.

 

Briggs, you make this point, over and over, about how rebuilding is basically unfair to elderly fans. I sympathize on an emotional level with where you seem to be coming from, and I think Ennder's crude ageism in this discussion was out of line. (No, not all people over 50 are worthless. Worthless people over 50 are worthless, just like worthless people under 50.) But really, what's your point? That elderly people have an irrational attachment to winning a few extra meaningless games? I have to say, that seems like an (unintentional) insult to elderly people, and I know it to be inaccurate. That we should be quicker to assume, for the sake of people who won't be around much longer, that the Brewers really can compete, if only we sign that last mid-rotation starter? Come on. Elderly people, in my experience, tend to be realistic verging on fatalistic. They're the least naiive people out there, and you'd have to be naiive to think that the Brewers, with their roster and resources of July 1, 2015, could have a snowball's chance in a St. Louis summer of contending for the Wild Card in 2016.

 

Moreover, as someone said above: We've been doing it your way. For years. We've signed middling free agents, held onto veterans until their trade value tanked, and (until the last couple of years) undervalued player development and the minor league system. Have the results actually been fun for you? If so, you have a much stronger constitution than I do. I was okay with a lot of those moves, because what the hell do I know, and it was (contrary to the refrains of some reflexive critics around here) a plan. But it failed. Your preferred approach to building a competitive, entertaining baseball organization hasn't worked. Do you really want to throw good resources after bad in pursuit of the same plan, especially when three teams in our division are close to peaking together (and the fourth can't give them a fight)?

 

I give Doug Melvin and Mark Attanasio great credit for their successes. Their latest success is that they appear to have recognized that what they were doing didn't work. Bruce Seid's last draft focused on upside like we hadn't seen in years. Ray Montgomery's first was more of the same. Then Doug traded away a quarter of our active roster down this doomed stretch, something this organization has never had the guts and wherewithal to do before. Now Mark has hired a radically different sort of GM, based -- lest we fear all venerable wisdom is out the window -- on simple, proven principles of sound management: know your stuff, have talent, make a plan, elicit respect from your peers.

 

Others have expressed the reasonable concern that Mark A. will roll Stearns. I get it, but I doubt it. Stearns sounds like a guy who would get another GM job in a year or two if we didn't grab him. He didn't need this gig so badly that he'd put up with micromanagement from the owner. More important, like I said, I think the owner gets that he made a lot of mistakes in the past. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll assume these guys are on the same page. It looks like a smart page to me.

[SRB]

I'm not a fan of the moves Houston has made over the last few seasons, but it's hard to peg those on this guy.

 

I know nothing about him so the one thing I'll say is I like that Mark A went for a non-traditional candidate rather than an old/safe pick.

[danzig6767]

"We want the best scouting information. We want the best player development department. That's what the best teams in baseball are doing, the ones that compete consistently year in and year out and that's our goal."

 

That's probably the most undervalued (and important) commodity in all of baseball. Whatever mix of "scout vs SABR" you're using, if your plan is to find undervalued players, you'd better have good people and systems in place for assigning value.

 

I am still awed by the fact that teams spend hundreds of millions on players, and even managers, but they pay a relative pittance to the guys who are charged with valuing the players and putting a winning team together. A player can help or hurt a team for a short period, while a GM (and his staff) can build a build a dynasty or destroy a franchise.

I've long felt the same way, especially for GM's with a history of success.

 

Take Friedman for example when he was with Tampa. There were/are tons of one inning pitchers in bullpens and mediocre at best position players across the league making way more money than him even though Friedman had the Rays as a consistent winning team on a tiny budget and in a division which had the mega revenue Yankees and Red Sox.

 

Hell, just one terrible decision by a GM can cost a team 10 to 100 plus million dollars. Make multiple bad moves and it's akin to having a bonfire with a pile of many millions of dollars as a team loses with a payroll anywhere from 50 to 150 plus million dollars. Yet, most GM's are paid less than say a solid veteran setup man in the bullpen, including winning GM's.

 

I don't get it. When the A's were consistently making the playoffs on a small budget, why weren't struggling franchises lining up to offer him some 8 to 10 million per year deal? That amount can get blown on a closer who could get replaced cheaper.

[igor67]

Or perhaps in this case the market is telling us that a healthy fraction of what we interpret as GM competence can be attributed to luck?

[patrickgpe]

I'm not a fan of the moves Houston has made over the last few seasons, but it's hard to peg those on this guy.

 

I know nothing about him so the one thing I'll say is I like that Mark A went for a non-traditional candidate rather than an old/safe pick.

well he did say that he was very involved in the gomez trade, which the early returns is not good for Houston.

[BillScottCanRake]

I will agree to disagree on the dues paying issue. This is his third organization in the past three years.

Just to clarify, Stearns worked with Houston for 35 months and, other than his time as Asst Director, Baseball Operations Arizona Fall League, he worked at least 14 months at each job along the way. If you are curious about his complete work history, you can view his LinkedInaccount or his Houston Astro's bio.

 

The question I would ask is this: Why should someone who is qualified to move to a new (and presumably better) job stay at his current one just so he can "pay his dues"?

[QuevedosTongue]

I will agree to disagree on the dues paying issue. This is his third organization in the past three years.

Just to clarify, Stearns worked with Houston for 35 months and, other than his time as Asst Director, Baseball Operations Arizona Fall League, he worked at least 14 months at each job along the way. If you are curious about his complete work history, you can view his LinkedInaccount or his Houston Astro's bio.

 

The question I would ask is this: Why should someone who is qualified to move to a new (and presumably better) job stay at his current one just so he can "pay his dues"?

 

I couldn't agree more Bill. This idea that an ambitious, qualified person has to stay in any job for any length of time seems wrong. Stearns has been with 3 different orgs over the last several years and has had multiple positions in each. Not because he was demoted or reassigned, but, I would think, because he proved himself capable of handling a promotion.

 

Whether he's successful in this job or not will have nothing to do with how long he worked at any other position or whether or not he paid any dues anywhere. It'll be about his ability to make smart personnel moves and the ability of his team to scout and develop talent.

[1992casey]

Asking fans to endure that kind of futility…

 

How a GM keeps the fans in mind during a rebuild may be worthy of its own thread if someone feels inclined to start one. There are going to be a lot of losses during a rebuild. There's no way around that. But I'd submit that if the GM can keep enough pitching and defense on hand to minimize the kind of things that torture the fans and players (e.g. prolonged innings full of errors, numerous walks, and multiple pitching changes), the end result of the game would become more bearable. From my standpoint, I think I could put up with a futile offense much more than futile pitching and defense.

 

Dave pointed out that we have a savvy fan base. That's going to help. I think back to Corey Hart's first at bat back on 25 May 2004, his only Major League plate appearance that season. The fans were yelling "Corey!, Corey!" — indicating that they definitely knew who he was and that they were pinning some of their hopes on him.

 

Along the same line, Mark indicated yesterday that while the Brewers haven't been very "transparent" about the rebuild, everyone has been smart enough to figure out what they're doing. The fans saw the previous rebuild yield positive results (to a degree). They also saw what didn't work, i.e. trading off the farm until there was little talent left. They've seen the successful results of other teams' rebuilding. And they see the value of the recently acquired talent and have a tangible example right now in Domingo Santana.

 

I think that the bottom line is that it's all about the fans, even if it means enduring losses now in order to hopefully sustain winning down the road.

[monty57]

I will agree to disagree on the dues paying issue. This is his third organization in the past three years.

Just to clarify, Stearns worked with Houston for 35 months and, other than his time as Asst Director, Baseball Operations Arizona Fall League, he worked at least 14 months at each job along the way. If you are curious about his complete work history, you can view his LinkedInaccount or his Houston Astro's bio.

 

The question I would ask is this: Why should someone who is qualified to move to a new (and presumably better) job stay at his current one just so he can "pay his dues"?

 

I think that's becoming more prevalent in society as a whole. Sticking with one company for your whole career is not nearly as common as it was in the past, largely because the raises you will get with that one company generally can't compete with what another company in need of your services will offer. Sticking around waiting for your boss to retire so you can get his/her job is a lot slower than finding another company that has the job open.

 

Nowadays, changing companies can mean that you are in demand and it can be the quickest way to "climb the ladder." Of course, it can also mean that you are a workplace cancer and companies can't wait to get rid of you. I'll put enough faith in Attanasio to believe Stearns is in the former camp and not the latter.

[craigharmann]

I'm not a fan of the moves Houston has made over the last few seasons, but it's hard to peg those on this guy.

 

I know nothing about him so the one thing I'll say is I like that Mark A went for a non-traditional candidate rather than an old/safe pick.

well he did say that he was very involved in the gomez trade, which the early returns is not good for Houston.

 

 

Gomez has not done great since he's been here, and now is hurt. Fiers has done really well. I'm pleasantly surprised at that.

[patrickgpe]

I'm not a fan of the moves Houston has made over the last few seasons, but it's hard to peg those on this guy.

 

I know nothing about him so the one thing I'll say is I like that Mark A went for a non-traditional candidate rather than an old/safe pick.

well he did say that he was very involved in the gomez trade, which the early returns is not good for Houston.

 

 

Gomez has not done great since he's been here, and now is hurt. Fiers has done really well. I'm pleasantly surprised at that.

 

I'll agree with that assessment, but my point is that the return that the brewers got is huge. Santana already looks like an everyday major league outfielder and he wasn't even the key member of the deal. Houser and Hader both pitched well in double A and could be rotation members is the future.

[craigharmann]

Gomez has not done great since he's been here, and now is hurt. Fiers has done really well. I'm pleasantly surprised at that.

 

I'll agree with that assessment, but my point is that the return that the brewers got is huge. Santana already looks like an everyday major league outfielder and he wasn't even the key member of the deal. Houser and Hader both pitched well in double A and could be rotation members is the future.

 

Where would Santana fit in the Astros' outfield? Tucker has done pretty well, Marisnick has been up and down and Springer, when healthy, is really good. Add Gomey in that mix, and whether or not they choose to resign Rasmus, there wasn't a place for Santana. In the rotation, you've got Keuchel who is a stud, McHugh who has been strong, as well as McCullers who is an up and comer. They've got a bunch of young fireballers, and maybe Appel, if he can ever figure it out, but I don't know on that one. The Astros are in a place to go for it this year, and sometimes you have to gamble and hope it pays off. Living in Houston, it's pretty fun!

[1992casey]

It appears that the price for Major League talent this year was high and that sellers made out very well. That wasn't the case a couple of years ago. As craigharmann states, there wasn't really a spot in the Astros' outfield for Santana unless they traded a current starter.

 

But that leads me to think of how great it would be to be able to bring up a minor leaguer in July and have him help bring the team a postseason berth. It's kind of the best of both worlds; adding talent for the stretch run and not giving up a prospect to do it.

[CheezWizHed]

the one thing that was obvious is that this is no longer your dad's milwaukee brewers. Its going to be a completely different organization, which is a good thing

My Dad's Milwaukee Brewers made it to the World Series...

 

well he did say that he was very involved in the gomez trade, which the early returns is not good for Houston.

He probably put that trade on his resume. See what I did for you?

 

Regarding the "paid his dues" discussion, I think one major challenge for him will be Matt Garza coming back to the team next year (unless traded). You have a Type A personality pitcher that is older than the GM and played the game at the MLB level. Stearns is going to need to be very savvy to manage situations like that.

[LouisEly]

Take Friedman for example when he was with Tampa. There were/are tons of one inning pitchers in bullpens and mediocre at best position players across the league making way more money than him even though Friedman had the Rays as a consistent winning team on a tiny budget and in a division which had the mega revenue Yankees and Red Sox.

Let's not forget that Tampa had a decade of top-5 overall picks to build that franchise with. They don't go to the World Series without David Price (#1 overall) or Evan Longoria (#3 overall), nor do they go to the World Series without 35-year-old Cliff Floyd or 30-year-old Eric Hinske. Yes, they've made some good trades to recycle talent, but they don't have Chris Archer without having a #1 overall pick (Delmon Young) to trade for Garza to trade for Archer. They also held on to Melvin Upton Jr. after 91 and 96 win seasons and let him walk in free agency instead of trading him before his contract was up.

 

Now that they've had seven years of not-top-10 picks that talent well is drying up. Now that the talent well is drying up, and they have no money to spend on retaining players, the shine is coming off. They are about to have their second losing season in a row. Yes, Friedman is no longer there, but most of the players were acquired under his tenure. And while they play in the AL East, they've only won 10 more games than the Brewers this year without having to play the Cardinals, Pirates, and Cubs 50 times. I'd say Cardinals/Pirates/Cubs are better than Yankees/Blue Jays/Orioles (Reds and Red Sox are a wash).

 

No, you don't need top-5 picks to build a winning franchise. But without top-5 picks you have no shot at a David Price, or an Evan Longoria, or a Kris Bryant, or a Kyle Schwarber, or a Gerritt Cole, or a Carlos Correa. It also matters what year you have top-5/10 picks. 2006, 2005, 2011 - good years to have top 5/10 picks. 2004, 2003... not so much. 2007 you better have 1/2, or you're probably coming away with bubkus.

[jerichoholicninja]

Is Stearns the right guy who's going to build a competitive franchise. I'm not going to pretend to know that answer.

 

If he the right type of guy? Yes. Mark didn't go out and get some baseball lifer, retread GM, or even promote from within. That tells me he's finally realized that the way they've been doing things isn't going to cut it anymore and it's time for a new direction.

[trwi7]

They don't go to the World Series without David Price (#1 overall) or Evan Longoria (#3 overall)

 

Boy, Price's 14 regular season innings and 2.1 innings in the ALCS in 2008 must have been incredibly important if they wouldn't have gotten to the World Series without him.

[reillymcshane]

Is Stearns the right guy who's going to build a competitive franchise. I'm not going to pretend to know that answer.

 

If he the right type of guy? Yes. Mark didn't go out and get some baseball lifer, retread GM, or even promote from within. That tells me he's finally realized that the way they've been doing things isn't going to cut it anymore and it's time for a new direction.

This sums it up pretty well.

[LouisEly]

They don't go to the World Series without David Price (#1 overall) or Evan Longoria (#3 overall)

 

Boy, Price's 14 regular season innings and 2.1 innings in the ALCS in 2008 must have been incredibly important if they wouldn't have gotten to the World Series without him.

You may want to check the game logs, particularly 7 of the ALCS.

 

Garza was pretty important to that team as well, and he was acquired for former #1 overall Delmon Young.

[trwi7]

They don't go to the World Series without David Price (#1 overall) or Evan Longoria (#3 overall)

 

Boy, Price's 14 regular season innings and 2.1 innings in the ALCS in 2008 must have been incredibly important if they wouldn't have gotten to the World Series without him.

You may want to check the game logs, particularly 7 of the ALCS.

 

Because they couldn't find anyone else to get those last 4 outs? It's a guarantee that Drew would've gotten the game tying or go ahead hit if say Trever Miller faced him instead of David Price?

 

My point was, he had basically nothing to do with them winning the division and a little to do with them going to the World Series. To say he had some huge part in it is ridiculous.

[BallFour]

Anyone know if Montgomery is being retained as scouting director? I think it is important to keep him around.

 

I always thought by pure speculation he came here because he was going to be the GM after Melvin, I feel the way things went this season that an internal hire just could not happen whether that is fair or not I don't know.

 

Building through the draft cannot be our only resource going forward. The moves the Cubs made to get Rizzo, Arrieta, and Russell/Mckinney were great acquisitions to get that organization jump started, Phillips/Santana/Hader is a good start. Only thing is we can't fall back on buying pitching like the Cubs could and will probably do. Which worries me as taking pitchers in the top 5 seems like a high risk but the organization needs an Ace prospect desperately. Next June can't come soon enough.