Attanasio's Top Goal

[rickh150]

In GM search, MA named his top priority criteria as (paraphrasing) maintaining a consistent playoff team. Great goal..... Great idea. Not #1 though.

 

I have issue with this for a few reasons.

 

First,Shouldn't the ultimate goal be to bring a World Series Championship for the fans of Milwaukee? Is our ultimate goal to be the 1990's Braves? Come on! Not to say that we wouldn't enjoy that run immensely and a championship to boot would be outstanding. However, Many playoff races and births with little playoff winning leaves a franchise with a very empty feeling. So no, I can't view this as #1 priority, Mark.

 

Second, In small market baseball, teams have windows. We had a window when Braun, Fielder, Hart, Yo we're cheap. I think Melvin knew it too so we went all in, as we should have done, with CC and Greinke.

 

Third, what precedent is there for small market teams having sustained success over the last 25 years? Twins for 7 years and early playoff exits? Rays? Not really.

 

Fourth, I don't think I would rather be the Marlins. Radical trades and Free agent signings, tear downs and build ups. Yet, they went for the throat in 97 and 03 and got World Series championships. Isn't that what we really want?? Give me 1 playoff birth and 1 championship in the next 10 years, and call me a content camper. I would rather have that than 7 playoff appearances in 10 years with no championship.

You would too.

[trwi7]

Once you're in the playoffs anything can happen. Look at the Giants and Royals last year. Did anyone expect them to make the World Series?

 

The Pirates have currently made the playoffs three straight years with modest payrolls. The Rays did for years.

 

It's all about signing as many core players as you can to team friendly deals. Trading away the players that won't sign early enough that you can get a ton of young talent and when venturing into the free agent market, identifying the bargains that won't require too much money or too long a deal where the deal is more likely to go bad.

[1992casey]

Robin Yount would tell us that the goal every season is to win the World Series.

 

Regarding Mark's statement, I think you're probably splitting hairs. Being able to field perennially contending teams is the ticket to the Series. Had he said that we want to be consistent contenders for a World Championship, it would have meant more or less the same thing to me.

 

No, I wouldn't want to be the Marlins either. They dismantled two world championship teams; that defies logic. They didn't even get the attendance dividend that a team would normally get in the seasons following those championships.

 

I don't think a team needs to be bound to "windows." If there's a constant talent flow from the minors, there are lots of options. The main thing is to not let the minor league system deteriorate to the point where it doesn't have the talent to feed the Major League team. There may be some minor ups and downs from year to year, but if things are done right, a team shouldn't have to be forced into a total rebuild.

[brewmann04]

I agree get into the playoffs an anything can happen

[markedman5]

He wants to win the World Series by being a consistent playoff team......I know it's been a tough year but to nitpick his choice of words us silly.

[reillymcshane]

Building a team that gets to the playoffs allows you the chance to win a World Series. I really see them as the same thing. Of course your goal is to win a championship, but you have to get to the playoffs to reach that end. As people have noted, anything can happen when you reach the playoffs, so the more times you get there, the more chances you have to win the ring.

[jerichoholicninja]

If he said his goal was to win a World Series that, to me, would mean he wants to go all in and continue to trade for and sign expensive veterans.

[rickh150]

Attanasio's top goal STRESS TOP is to compete for playoffs yearly? Hmm... Isn't this how we got into our current state? Instead of scrapping the 2014 team, or trading valuable off parts after that season, taking a step back, we went for it with similar parts in 2015 to sniff the playoffs. Melvin himself said team officials thought the 2015 Brewers were a slightly better than .500 team and with some things bouncing the right way a playoff team. To me that means probably not a playoff team. So we were ok to stand pat? If championship was #1, we trade More guys at the start of this year and try a different configured group to compete later.

 

I am getting confused. What are we doing? If we believe we can be perennial winners, do we ever rebuild? Is management going for playoffs yearly starting in 2016? Has that vision started already, or are we talking about competing for playoffs regularly in two or three years? If that vision starts now, we should be entertaining free agents this offseason. We need to pay for spare parts that we don't have in the system. This belief is equal to thinking you always should be competing to get in for the second wild card.

 

If we had Winning a championship as the top goal, we would be going through some growing pains now, which we are..... Playing young guys, not getting pricy free agents, making trades for quality prospects that are not in the prime of their career yet. We would be looking to mortgage the future a bit and go all in every once in a while to get a championship...... Taking a step back for a year or two in order to revamp and have a window with a strong group( AA Biloxi).

 

So to me, our words and actions don't match up. We are rebuilding now to be what again?

Perennial winners every year or championship contenders every few years? HUGE difference!

We have seen both visions over the last 7 seven years..... Intertwined at times.

In 2008 and 2011, we went all in to not only get in the playoffs, but win the whole thing. Ace pitchers CC and Zgreinke were brought in to pitch and win playoff games, pitch game 7 of the World Series. We traded off young, controllable, talented players that could have allowed us to be yearly winners to go for it all, especially in 2011.

Yet recently, we are signing K-rod and Garza to maybe get in the playoffs.

 

To me, the organization's TOP goal changed or waivered over the years. Are we starting a new vision now or are we continuing to flip flop around?

[Bombers]

When I hear this topic, I always bring up the time Lovie Smith took over for the Bears. He said in his opening press conference that his top priority is to beat the Green Bay Packers. Right when he said that I laughed. To me that is a losers mentality. The top goal is to win championships.

 

You can spin it however you want. Win consistently and finally win 1, get lucky and win 1, play mediocre but get in and win it. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day your organizational goal is to win it all.

[MNBrew]

On one hand, Rickh150, your point is clear. On the other, I also think you're nit-picking. I think there's a "see the forest for the trees" angle in what he said that's the right idea. I tend to believe that what Attanasio wants is the same thing we want: a consistently successful team that's built the right way, meaning not only that they're successful but also that their success should be based in an organizational approach that makes sustaining that success highly likely.

 

I've read enough of your posts to glean a strong sense of your apparent cynicism if not overt distrust toward anyone & anything currently related to the current ownership & leadership. Could anyone associated with the Brewers right now other than David Stearns say something you'd have any sincere inclination to have any faith in?

 

**I'm sincerely curious and I don't ask that with any intention of disrespect.**

[dlk9s]

I find it funny that people are crapping on the owner for saying the number one goal is to be a winning team.

 

 

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH GODDDDDDDDDDDD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[DuWayne Steurer]

This really just feels like arguing semantics.

 

Being consistently winning = challenging for the playoffs. Making the playoffs = challenging for a world title.

[brewmann04]

I think the thing we like is the man no scared to spend money to win.

[splitterpfj]

I think Mr Attanasio is right on point with his answer. You can't win the World Series if you don't get in the playoffs, and in the playoffs, the hot team wins, more often that what you think is the best team.

 

A playoff spot is a lottery ticket, the more times you get there, the more chances you have to win it, so get there as many times as you can.

[JohnBriggs12]

I think Mr Attanasio is right on point with his answer. You can't win the World Series if you don't get in the playoffs, and in the playoffs, the hot team wins, more often that what you think is the best team.

 

A playoff spot is a lottery ticket, the more times you get there, the more chances you have to win it, so get there as many times as you can.

 

Exactly. When teams try to fine tune their rosters to win short series it backfires more often than not because of the randomness of such a limited amount of games. I take that statement to mean he doesn't want to become a franchise that goes all in for one or two seasons only to completely dismantle for a 5-6 year building period. Having competitive teams year in and year out is good for business and Attanasio is a business man. But I do wish he'd learn to stay away from multiyear deals with average starters on the wrong side of 30 or who have a lot of mileage on them coming off big years. Better to hunt for a bargain like the Pirates did with Liriano a few years ago. That was astute.

[BillScottCanRake]

A playoff spot is a lottery ticket, the more times you get there, the more chances you have to win it, so get there as many times as you can.

 

This times a million. I'd like to know that, should an injury derail a long post season run the odds are good that there will be another chance next year, instead of there maybe being another chance in five or six or 10 years.

 

Milwaukee has had two chances to win a WS since 2008, while those 1990s Braves had 8 (or 14 if you include through 2005). I'd much rather have 8 (or 14) chances because most of the time that's going to result in two, three or four titles instead of just one. I think the Braves only winning it all once during that stretch was almost as improbable as making the playoffs 14 of 15 years.

[502 to Right]

In GM search, MA named his top priority criteria as (paraphrasing) maintaining a consistent

First,Shouldn't the ultimate goal be to bring a World Series Championship for the fans of Milwaukee? Is our ultimate goal to be the 1990's Braves? Come on!

 

The Braves won a World Series in 1995.

[rickh150]

On one hand, Rickh150, your point is clear. On the other, I also think you're nit-picking. I think there's a "see the forest for the trees" angle in what he said that's the right idea. I tend to believe that what Attanasio wants is the same thing we want: a consistently successful team that's built the right way, meaning not only that they're successful but also that their success should be based in an organizational approach that makes sustaining that success highly likely.

 

I've read enough of your posts to glean a strong sense of your apparent cynicism if not overt distrust toward anyone & anything currently related to the current ownership & leadership. Could anyone associated with the Brewers right now other than David Stearns say something you'd have any sincere inclination to have any faith in?

 

**I'm sincerely curious and I don't ask that with any intention of disrespect.**

 

I like vague words too..... Just not as much as you. What does "successful" or "consistently successful" look like exactly? What is "an organizational approach"? "Maintaining success highly likely"? Man, that paragraph of yours sounds really good on the surface. Count me in. I want the Brewers to be good all the time too. Great paragraph, except that it has little substance.... Kind of like a politician.

 

When you dig deeper, you find that the consistent small market playoff team rarely exists over even a 5 year period in the last 25 years. Off the top of my head, there are the A's, Rays, and Twins. No championships either with them. The Twins could get in but didn't have the top starting pitching to go far. The Rays were fairly consistent because of how terrible they were, getting high #1 picks. Now, they are down again. The A's had Cheap upper level pitching with Mulder, Zito, Hudson, and Harden, then they got expensive and they had to rebuild. The small market team (Marlins) that did win it (twice) went at it a different way....Build it and burn it (not in favor but believe small markets should shoot for windows of opportunity).

 

Now if we have the potential to keep good young talent by having a larger payroll of a upper mid market team, I like the strategy, ala the Cardinals. For us, it is much more realistic to build around Biloxi, just like we built around Fielder, Braun, Hart, Weeks, and Yo. Try to have a great team in a couple/few years.... Build for it.... Get the upper level pitching needed thru trade when time comes. Sign a few vets then too. Compete hopefully for the playoffs and a championship for a 3 to 5 window, and then repeat.

 

Too many believe we can be the Milwaukee Packers with only homegrown players, that we can be good all the time. The finances of baseball are not like football and that is why perennial small market powerhouses are no where to be found; it doesn't happen. We can't keep many great players long term.

 

Finally, I am not against ownership. Attanasio is the best thing that happened to this organization. I have given Melvin more credit than most. I just am confused with the focus to be good all the time when small markets have yet to do tHis yet; they HAVE TO go thru rebuilds (unless unbelievable drafts occur yearly when team is winning). I'd much rather have the top goal be .... to WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP by building towards it yearly. Whether it means to take a step back (like after 2014) before charging ahead, whether it means building around Biloxi, whether it means building around a couple of potential ace pitchers, the organization's top goal should not be to sniff or be in the playoffs yearly. It doesn't happen for small markets.

 

It sure would be nice though.

[SoCalBrewfan]

Well, there's the Marlins boom and bust approach to winning a championship, but frankly, if I could choose, I'd prefer the team that wins 85-100 games every year for a decade or two as opposed to a team that wins it all then loses 108 games the following year. In the time the Marlins have existed, St Louis also has two world championships, but they've had a lot more interesting baseball along the way. Atlanta has only one, but would you really prefer the Marlins over that time frame?

 

Honestly, making the playoffs 8 years out of ten is probably a lot harder than winning a world series...you can get some breaks and win a championship, but consistently winning require organizational excellence throughout, and you can't just luck into that.

[MNBrew]

On one hand, Rickh150, your point is clear. On the other, I also think you're nit-picking. I think there's a "see the forest for the trees" angle in what he said that's the right idea. I tend to believe that what Attanasio wants is the same thing we want: a consistently successful team that's built the right way, meaning not only that they're successful but also that their success should be based in an organizational approach that makes sustaining that success highly likely.

 

I've read enough of your posts to glean a strong sense of your apparent cynicism if not overt distrust toward anyone & anything currently related to the current ownership & leadership. Could anyone associated with the Brewers right now other than David Stearns say something you'd have any sincere inclination to have any faith in?

 

**I'm sincerely curious and I don't ask that with any intention of disrespect.**

 

I like vague words too..... Just not as much as you. What does "successful" or "consistently successful" look like exactly? What is "an organizational approach"? "Maintaining success highly likely"? Man, that paragraph of yours sounds really good on the surface. Count me in. I want the Brewers to be good all the time too. Great paragraph, except that it has little substance.... Kind of like a politician.

Wow, that was unnecessarily condescending. Trying to respond constructively, I'll assert that...

 

"Successful" & "consistently successful" at the MLB level = playoff-contending if not outright dominant team with a reasonable chance to make it to & win the World Series

 

"Successful" & "consistently successful" at the MiLB level = drafting & developing high-ceiling talent that builds a strong foundation in the minor leagues consisting of sound fundamental play, highly positive individual results on the field ("stats"), and winning teams, and which then create a pipeline of excellent young players coming up to the majors with great regularity

 

"Organizational approach that makes sustaining that success highly likely" = 1) the attributes/plan Stearns articulated in his introductory presser, in combination with 2) the integrity and conviction to stick with that plan and make sound long-term decisions when rebuilding/reloading/retooling/re-whatever-ing becomes the necessary step

 

I would hope that's sufficiently clearer.

 

Do you have a different vision of what "sustainable success" is? I'd guess most BF.net posters would arrive at fairly similar descriptors of success.

 

Rephrasing, I think Attanasio meant and what I thought most here would agree with amounts to this:

 

- I want the Brewers to be good enough at the MLB level to be an upper-tier dominant team or at least to make the playoffs every year, which gives them a chance to make it to & hopefully win the World Series.

- I want the Brewers to have a farm system that's deep in high-end prospects, year in and year out, which gives them the flexibility to turn over parts of the roster affordably with those prospects or, at the right times, with assets acquired with pieces of the current roster and/or some of those prospects.

- I want the Brewers to be smart enough to know when the wise thing to do is see the decline coming before it totally bottoms out, and capably and proactively retool things to return the caliber of team & farm system described in the previous two points. If the lousy stretches can be narrowed and/or minimized by those "right" types of decisions -- without compromising vision & the necessary steps of the process -- then so much the better.

 

At least the first two of those last three bullet points seem to describe the Cardinals to a tee. I dislike the Cardinals as a team, but I'd love to see the Brewers build a record of success that holds up well against the standard the Cardinals have set over the last however many years.

[rickh150]

- I want the Brewers to be good enough at the MLB level to be an upper-tier dominant team or at least to make the playoffs every year, which gives them a chance to make it to & hopefully win the World Series.

 

- I want the Brewers to have a farm system that's deep in high-end prospects, year in and year out, which gives them the flexibility to turn over parts of the roster affordably with those prospects or, at the right times, with assets acquired with pieces of the current roster and/or some of those prospects.

 

- I want the Brewers to be smart enough to know when the wise thing to do is see the decline coming before it totally bottoms out, and capably and proactively retool things to return the caliber of team & farm system described in the previous two points. If the lousy stretches can be narrowed and/or minimized by those "right" types of decisions -- without compromising vision & the necessary steps of the process -- then so much the better.

 

 

Do we have any advantage whatsoever among the other MLB teams? Money? Prestige? Overseas pipeline talent? Does any small market? No. Small markets try to get enough resources together for short runs at the playoffs/championship. This is what all small market teams do; then they have to tear it down or take a few steps back. In the last 25 years, your definition of sustained success has not happened for a small market team, has it?

 

I am all for goals and having a great vision, yet let's be realistic. The great thing about 2015 baseball is that all teams believe if they are smart enough with key decisions, a World Championship is an attainable goal. A small market team that wins consistently, makes the playoffs year in, year out for a decade, having prospects galore to fill holes, hasn't happened yet. Why yearn for this? It would be great, but again unrealistic.

 

If we had the Cards money, we sign Greinke or Fielder or a closer to long deals. We probably get in the playoffs in 2012 and/or 2014. Melvin would still be considered a top GM. But we have a substantially lower payroll, even at 100million, and the gap will continue to grow because of the large, new TV deals in bigger markets. To sustain long term success, you usually need to keep very good/great players around for most of their careers. You need good young players coming through your system constantly, even when you are drafting in the mid to late first round for a few straight years. Few teams can do this.

 

Concluding, I would much rather hear MA say that our ultimate goal is a championship. For those of you saying I am nitpicking his words, I am not. He wants to win it all, of course. Yet, why didn't he include it in his ultimate goal? I find it extremely interesting that he did not, knowing that the guy wants to win badly. Was it anywhere else on his list? If not, why not? I fear that he does not want to make more CC or Greinke trades where we gave up pieces of the " sustained success" for a better shot at a championship. On the other side, I fear that he will sign vets just to sustain limited success and crowds instead of doing tear down for a couple of years.

 

(MNBrew, no hard feelings on this end and apologies for poorly worded intro. You stated your vision very well; I just can't agree with every point made. We both want the Brewers to be exceedingly good. The difference is that I see the road to being good consistently for a long time as a near impossible task knowing the deep pocketed opposition. To me, the better route is to shoot for great by building teams around great core players, trying to build windows of opportunity, knowing that rebuilding is a part to small market baseball.

[dlk9s]

Concluding, I would much rather hear MA say that our ultimate goal is a championship. For those of you saying I am nitpicking his words, I am not. He wants to win it all, of course.

 

Yes, you are.

[rickh150]

Concluding, I would much rather hear MA say that our ultimate goal is a championship. For those of you saying I am nitpicking his words, I am not. He wants to win it all, of course.

 

Yes, you are.

 

 

Nope.

Under this vision, would we have traded for CC, Greinke, Marcum? Would we trade Fielder before 2011? Do we ever get aggressive again for certain seasons if being contenders yearly is the goal?

[MNBrew]

The vision/goals/MO I articulated would represent the ideal -- an absolute standard, not a relative one. I think you set yourself up for trouble when you settle for relative standards.

 

You have to start with the ultimate goal. Then, like any team, you have to adjust as you go based on some things you can't control -- market size, injuries, prolonged slumps or off-years, & other circumstances that affect depth, etc., as well as where you are within the plan (relative to the goal and the process of attaining those ideals). For the Brewers, the biggest issue to anticipate is the collective sum of small-market realities (revenue limitations, less fiscal room for errors or compensating for them, etc.). You deal with the issues as they arise, but you never waver from your focus on working toward the ideal.

 

I suppose that's a long way of saying that I figured the small market realities were already understood within the ideals I laid out.

[rickh150]

The vision/goals/MO I articulated would represent the ideal -- an absolute standard, not a relative one. I think you set yourself up for trouble when you settle for relative standards.

I think you are setting yourself up for trouble by making unattainable goals as the priority instead of the ultimate goal (a championship), which is attainable.

 

You have to start with the ultimate goal.

 

Agree whole heartedly.