2016 Organizational Rankings

[And That]

Four of the top 125 SPs in the MiLB is our system's Achilles heel.

At least that is better than it has been, though I guess it is slightly worse than the "average" (125/30=4.16666) still. That number may increase slightly if the Brewers can get a Tate and/or Ortiz type in a Lucroy trade.

 

Also have to think/hope that one or more of the Devin Williamses/Marcos Diplans/Angel Venturas of the system takes a big step forward this year.

[reillymcshane]

Four of the top 125 SPs in the MiLB is our system's Achilles heel.

At least that is better than it has been, though I guess it is slightly worse than the "average" (125/30=4.16666) still. That number may increase slightly if the Brewers can get a Tate and/or Ortiz type in a Lucroy trade.

 

Also have to think/hope that one or more of the Devin Williamses/Marcos Diplans/Angel Venturas of the system takes a big step forward this year.

I agree that we could use more big upside pitching. I've advocated we use our last big trade chip, Lucory, to get some. As suggested, something with Tate and another starter would be fascinating to add to the system.

 

That said, I'm good if we would build a deal around a bat, such as Trea Turner. It's about acquiring high quality talent - and I'll take it wherever and whatever we can get it. I just look at Lucroy as the last chance to snag a big arm or two. Once we deal Luc, I don't see anyone netting a Top 50 type player. Perhaps Peralta will if he rebounds this year, but we'll see. After that, it's the draft (or international signing) as the next way to find a big upside player.

[pacopete4]

Need pitchers to emerge in our top end of the farm system or this rebuild will be nothing more than our last uprising.

[Jenkins5]

Yeah agree, we need pitching. This will be a huge draft for us & we need to hit on 1 of those top pitchers at #5. Then maybe another big arm in 2nd round. We have guys but they need to start making the jump. To bad Kirby will miss all season.

[Boomer5]

I am assuming they are taking the Cubs route. They figured out its too hard to project pitching in the draft and low minors. Hitting projects better.

 

Pile up on hitting in the next few drafts then trade for the big time pitching in the more advanced minors.

[TheCrew07]

I am assuming they are taking the Cubs route. They figured out its too hard to project pitching in the draft and low minors. Hitting projects better.

 

Pile up on hitting in the next few drafts then trade for the big time pitching in the more advanced minors.

 

This has been covered so many times but what exactly makes people think that the top pitching prospects in the upper minors are readily available for a trade in today's market? What was true in the mid 2000s when organizations were chasing OPS isn't necessarily true anymore.

 

While the market could swing back in the direction of devaluing prospects, I don't think that's on the immediate horizon, and the Brewers simply haven't played the "all hitting and no pitching" game very well. With all the hitting talent the Brewers successfully developed they still never had enough pitching to make a consistent run year in and year out. Of course with a different FO we might actually adopt a sustainable long term model but the simple truth is that regardless the Brewers have to develop their own impact pitching because they aren't able to afford it in FA. Not that FA is a good route to build a pitching staff as organizations will almost always end up paying for nothing by the end of those contracts.

 

The Brewer's best bet to acquire impact MiLB pitching is by trading impact MLB players at the correct time, as in when they have more than rental player value at the trade deadline of their last season. If the Brewers are trading in season then they can't really sit around and wait for the market to be set because in recent history the top prospect pitching moving in deadline deals typically happens on the front side and there's not much out there at the back end.

 

Based on the arbitrary criteria Melvin's FO limited themselves to the Brewers haven't acquired any potential impact minor league pitching above A ball, at least in my opinion. The pitchers either have/had stuff but no arm/control or control without the arm/stuff. I think an argument could be made that some guys have/had #2 upside as an absolute best case, but there just hasn't been a guy who comfortably projected as a #2.

 

I like the depth of pitching in the minors right now, we have a ton of mid and back of the rotation types, but we don't have any MLB quality #2s at their peak, there's no Gallardo out there right now. Certainly some of our existing pitchers could continue to improve and progress in that direction and while I could care less about having an "Ace", to be truly competitive year in and year out, especially in the playoffs, we need at least 2 pitchers of #2 quality though I'd prefer 3.

 

I'd like a rotation of #2, #2, #2, #3, and #3, that's been my goal since I started thinking about this stuff in 2007-8. That would allow the Brewers to shift the fringe guys with arms and stuff but lacking control to the bullpen to be top notch relievers. Developing pitching is a numbers game, it always has been, and likely will be in the future... the Brewers have never had numbers and that's why there just haven't been enough pitchers to fill out a rotation much less a bullpen.

[CheezWizHed]

I would certainly agree that you emphasize your strengths and find another way to fill your weaknesses (and traditionally developing SPs has been a big weakness).

 

But with the recent changes in both drafting and GM leadership, I wonder if that is something that will change. I'd be surprised (seeing all the SPs at the top of the draft) if we don't draft an SP this year.

[reillymcshane]

My issue with focusing on developing hitters over pitchers is that the only way we get a really good pitcher is if we get lucky (such as the Arrieta acquisition by Chicago) or we trade for the guy. We can't do the Chicago method - we aren't likely to spend $25M for a pitcher in free agency.

 

Look at the last really good pitchers we acquired via trade - Sabathia and Greinke. The cost was pretty high, and the availability isn't always there.

 

The dearth of pitching prospects has saddled us with the Suppans of the baseball world - middling starters who still command a lot of money. I don't want us paying Greinke $34M a year in free agency.

 

I know pitching is hard to develop - great pitching even more so - but that just means you have to develop a lot of guys. For every 3-4 Top 100 prospects, you're lucky if one turns out as a decent starter. So we have to always be flush with these kinds of players.

[adambr2]

It's possible that when we are in position to contend again, we may also be in a financial position to make a huge splash signing in free agency like the Diamondbacks just did with Greinke and add an ace that way. But it's tough to count on something like that and I'm sure the plan (and the better plan, for sure ), is to develop our own.

[JohnBriggs12]

Finding pitching is more luck than anything. But you can draft them. Key is you can't play the service time game with them. When they are ready, they need to be in the majors facing major league hitters. That's how they go from great stuff to major league aces. They get tested at the highest level. You really don't develop great pitchers. They usually dominate immediately. Look at guys like Bumgarner, Sale, and Kershaw. Price and on and on. They were all great from the time they turned professional. Chances of finding say a Jacob DeGrom in round 9 are pretty slim.

[Boomer5]

I am assuming they are taking the Cubs route. They figured out its too hard to project pitching in the draft and low minors. Hitting projects better.

 

Pile up on hitting in the next few drafts then trade for the big time pitching in the more advanced minors.

 

This has been covered so many times but what exactly makes people think that the top pitching prospects in the upper minors are readily available for a trade in today's market? What was true in the mid 2000s when organizations were chasing OPS isn't necessarily true anymore.

 

While the market could swing back in the direction of devaluing prospects, I don't think that's on the immediate horizon, and the Brewers simply haven't played the "all hitting and no pitching" game very well. With all the hitting talent the Brewers successfully developed they still never had enough pitching to make a consistent run year in and year out. Of course with a different FO we might actually adopt a sustainable long term model but the simple truth is that regardless the Brewers have to develop their own impact pitching because they aren't able to afford it in FA. Not that FA is a good route to build a pitching staff as organizations will almost always end up paying for nothing by the end of those contracts.

 

The Brewer's best bet to acquire impact MiLB pitching is by trading impact MLB players at the correct time, as in when they have more than rental player value at the trade deadline of their last season. If the Brewers are trading in season then they can't really sit around and wait for the market to be set because in recent history the top prospect pitching moving in deadline deals typically happens on the front side and there's not much out there at the back end.

 

Based on the arbitrary criteria Melvin's FO limited themselves to the Brewers haven't acquired any potential impact minor league pitching above A ball, at least in my opinion. The pitchers either have/had stuff but no arm/control or control without the arm/stuff. I think an argument could be made that some guys have/had #2 upside as an absolute best case, but there just hasn't been a guy who comfortably projected as a #2.

 

I like the depth of pitching in the minors right now, we have a ton of mid and back of the rotation types, but we don't have any MLB quality #2s at their peak, there's no Gallardo out there right now. Certainly some of our existing pitchers could continue to improve and progress in that direction and while I could care less about having an "Ace", to be truly competitive year in and year out, especially in the playoffs, we need at least 2 pitchers of #2 quality though I'd prefer 3.

 

I'd like a rotation of #2, #2, #2, #3, and #3, that's been my goal since I started thinking about this stuff in 2007-8. That would allow the Brewers to shift the fringe guys with arms and stuff but lacking control to the bullpen to be top notch relievers. Developing pitching is a numbers game, it always has been, and likely will be in the future... the Brewers have never had numbers and that's why there just haven't been enough pitchers to fill out a rotation much less a bullpen.

 

I am not suggesting it will be easy, which is why I have advocated the Brewers maximizing their draft and pool position for the next 2+ years to give themselves better chances at the better arms in the draft/trades. The composition of the MLB roster pretty much guarantees we will be picking high for several years.

 

As for trades, if they were one arm away, an Arcia could net us just about any of them. Obviously that isn't a deal they would make now, but 3 years from now assuming they have a top 1-3 draft each year, they can trade for any elite arm(s).

[statAddict]

I agree with TheCrew07. I think his point that you don't necessarily need to have an "Ace" is especially interesting to consider. The temptation to dream of developing a true "Ace" is what leads to draft picks of "throwers" with a big fastball and a breaking ball with huge movement, but little feel for pitching. I have seen too many of those guys fail. I'm hoping the new front office can find the sweet spot, which seems to be athletic high school pitchers with above average stuff (a notch below the potential "Aces"), projectability, and at least some feel for pitching relative to their age (Odorizzi and Lopez come to mind). By targeting guys with more of a #2/3 profile, I think the bust rate will be lower and you might find a guy that develops into an "Ace" using premium command rather than elite velocity/movement.

 

I do like the approach Stearns has been taking to acquire pitching depth in his trades. Since the promising arms in the upper levels of the minors have become so costly to acquire in trades, he has been stockpiling young, interesting arms at the lower levels that have some perceived flaw (Missaki, Peralta, Derby - too small) or have yet to break out (Supak). Are they lottery tickets who were cheap for a reason? Of course... but, they have shown enough to be interesting and worth developing. If you get enough of those types into the system, you're bound to hit on a few.

[TheCrew07]

I'm not opposed to prospect for prospect trades at all but there's no way Arcia would net us whomever we want.

 

There is a short list of teams with prospects that have the potential to be true #1s, and then reduce that number further by the # of teams who would actually be willing to trade a MLB ready yet unproven #1 or even a #2, then reduce that # by someone who needs a SS (or whatever position we'd like to trade). 10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but that's not the way the market works anymore, especially with such a finite supply of available pitching.

 

I would trade Arcia for Glasnow, Giolito, or Urias in a heartbeat but there's simply no way the Pirates, Nationals, or Dodgers make that deal as pitching > hitting. We could maybe pull someone like Newcomb because the Braves have acquired so much pitching but they are really the only team in a good position to deal a young arm right now, and that's pretty much the way it is in any given year.

 

There are literally 1 or 2 potential impact prospect pitchers traded each year and it's all about needs matching up and timing. There's no such thing as waiting for the market to be set if that's the kind of talent you're in the market for... if you snooze you lose.

[Boomer5]

I would certainly agree that you emphasize your strengths and find another way to fill your weaknesses (and traditionally developing SPs has been a big weakness).

 

But with the recent changes in both drafting and GM leadership, I wonder if that is something that will change. I'd be surprised (seeing all the SPs at the top of the draft) if we don't draft an SP this year.

 

The Luc trade and this years draft will let us know what direction the new FO is going for sure.

 

I was assuming we were going the Cubs route because of the moves so far where we went primarily for young hitting with a high ceiling and mature controllable pitching in Anderson and the lottery ticket guys in 3 Mariners and Supak/Bubba. Nottingham and Cano have ceilings that look potentially excellent while the pitching we acquired doesn't project to anything. Even the most optimistic fan cant see anything close to a #2, Id assume.

[Eye Black]

Since the Handbook was published the Brewers have acquired six players that were listed in other teams top 30 lists: Isan Diaz (Dbacks #9), Garin Cecchini (Red Sox, #30), Trey Supak (Pirates #20), Rymer Liriano (Padres #23), Freddy Peralta (Mariners #15), Daniel Missaki (Mariners #30). They also lost one from their own top 30 list, Tyler Wagner (#19).

The Brewers have since added three more players this off-season that were listed on other team's top 30 prospect lists in the Baseball America Prospect Handbook: Jacob Nottingham (A's #11), Bubba Derby (A's #12), Sean Nolin (A's #14).

[Eye Black]

Developing pitching is a numbers game, it always has been, and likely will be in the future...

Excellent overall post, it's good to have you back!

 

This is one of the reasons I am hopeful of the current organizational rebuild. It seems like there has been a shift toward adding as many talented young players as possible and letting talent, health, and development sort things out.

[Outlander]

MLB Pipeline featured NL Central teams today. The Pirates and Brewers top 30 were not released therefore they both have top ten farm systems.

[SRB]

This has been covered so many times but what exactly makes people think that the top pitching prospects in the upper minors are readily available for a trade in today's market? What was true in the mid 2000s when organizations were chasing OPS isn't necessarily true anymore.

 

Daniel Norris (AAA/MLB), Jeff Hoffman (AA), Jake Thompson (AA), and Sean Manaea (AA) were all top-100 pitching prospects traded last season. Not counting Josh Hader (AA) and others.

[reillymcshane]

This has been covered so many times but what exactly makes people think that the top pitching prospects in the upper minors are readily available for a trade in today's market? What was true in the mid 2000s when organizations were chasing OPS isn't necessarily true anymore.

 

Daniel Norris (AAA/MLB), Jeff Hoffman (AA), Jake Thompson (AA), and Sean Manaea (AA) were all top-100 pitching prospects traded last season. Not counting Josh Hader (AA) and others.

Those guys got dealt for the likes of Price, Tulowitski, Hamels and Zobrist. Top pitching can be had - but it means you have to give up something pretty special. Teams are reluctant to give up good pitching prospects, but if Lucroy shows he's healthy, I imagine he's the guy that will fetch us one (or two).

[SRB]

This has been covered so many times but what exactly makes people think that the top pitching prospects in the upper minors are readily available for a trade in today's market? What was true in the mid 2000s when organizations were chasing OPS isn't necessarily true anymore.

 

Daniel Norris (AAA/MLB), Jeff Hoffman (AA), Jake Thompson (AA), and Sean Manaea (AA) were all top-100 pitching prospects traded last season. Not counting Josh Hader (AA) and others.

Those guys got dealt for the likes of Price, Tulowitski, Hamels and Zobrist. Top pitching can be had - but it means you have to give up something pretty special. Teams are reluctant to give up good pitching prospects, but if Lucroy shows he's healthy, I imagine he's the guy that will fetch us one (or two).

 

Sure, I don't think we're going to get Norris. Just pointing out that pitching is still readily traded for commensurate major league talent.

[wichmae]

Top 30 for us is out. #9 from Callis and Mayo

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=mil

[And That]

That seems fair. The Brewers' depth is impressive but they lack ultra high-end guys (only Arcia grades out at 60 or above).

[TheCrew07]

This has been covered so many times but what exactly makes people think that the top pitching prospects in the upper minors are readily available for a trade in today's market? What was true in the mid 2000s when organizations were chasing OPS isn't necessarily true anymore.

 

Daniel Norris (AAA/MLB), Jeff Hoffman (AA), Jake Thompson (AA), and Sean Manaea (AA) were all top-100 pitching prospects traded last season. Not counting Josh Hader (AA) and others.

 

Once again, that's not what I said. I didn't say top 100 pitching prospects, I said "the top pitching prospects", and I named pitchers who are legit #1 and likely #2 candidates today through Newcomb in various posts.

 

Hoffman has that #1/2potential, but he was in A+ until his start on 7-18, so while he was in AA for a couple of starts, that's not where he started the season, and he was traded for Tulowitzki. Norris also has #2 potential and was traded for David Price, which of course also fits directly into what I said about getting that kind of player requires trading impact MLB talent, as in from a Brewers perspective a Braun or Gomez, maybe Lucroy.

 

Thompson, Manaea, and Hader (+others) are not top of the rotation pitchers today, nor will they likely ever be, and I say that while being relatively high on many of them.

 

Just because someone is a top 100 prospect doesn't mean their most likely profile is that of a top of the rotation starter, and I don't deal in best case scenarios to skew arguments in my favor. In fact I don't like to deal in the extremes period.

 

The only 2 things worth taking away from this discussion are that potential impact pitchers require giving up impact MLB players and the longer you wait at the trade deadline the less likely you are to be able to acquire impact minor league pitching.

 

Here's the 2015 Trade Index from BA, Hoffamn went in the first significant prospect deal at the deadline and Norris in the 2nd which was 2 days later. Toronto had the prospects and the willingness to guy their system, so this year we should be looking for a team in a similar situation. A team that desperately wants to improve the MLB roster, has a need which matches up, and is willing to burn legit prospects to acquire said need.

 

It's going to be a short list, it is every year.

[ctmyers]

Top 30 for us is out. #9 from Callis and Mayo

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=mil

 

Gatewood seems particularly low in comparison to similar players, namely Harrison and Isan Diaz. Seeing Freddy Peralta on the list is surprising. If Milwaukee's system is vastly better than Seattle's and Peralta didn't make Seattle's most recent top-30, how did he increase in value without playing more games?

[reillymcshane]

Top 30 for us is out. #9 from Callis and Mayo

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=mil

 

Gatewood seems particularly low in comparison to similar players, namely Harrison and Isan Diaz. Seeing Freddy Peralta on the list is surprising. If Milwaukee's system is vastly better than Seattle's and Peralta didn't make Seattle's most recent top-30, how did he increase in value without playing more games?

The last MLB Pipeline list was made mid-season in 2015. Peralta had barely played by that time last year since he was in rookie ball, thus never got onto the radar as an up and coming prospect. If he was still with Seattle, he'd probably be in their top 10.