Attanasio's Top Goal

[adambr2]

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Which one do you take? Which one would MA take?

Door B. You take the WS win. With 30 teams in the league, you're gold if you can win one in a decade. I think most people would take the guaranteed WS, including Mark A. But that's not how the game works, because no one can guarantee a championship.

 

And the best way to win a championship is getting into the dance as often as possible with the best team you can afford. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

( seriously, don't you now think Melvin should have traded MORE of the future in 2011 now knowing we didn't make the playoffs the last 5 years? Could we have won it with another piece or two... Furcal? A legit #5 hitter?)..

 

More of what future in 2011? There was nothing left in the farm. The whole thing was gutted out after the Greinke trade. Really it was already pretty gutted after trading Lawrie, it was kind of impressive that we were still able to cobble enough together to land Greinke.

 

The only moves possible after that were lower profile moves that we did do, like for Nyjer, Jerry Hairston, and K-Rod. The farm was already running on fumes at this point, there's nothing more we could have done to go for it. We did make those moves for another piece or two that you're suggesting.

[clancyphile]

Looking back, I wonder if after the 1988 season, it might not have been a better idea to trade Ted Higuera and Rob Deer and try to get some younger, cheaper, high-ceiling players.

 

What haul could Higuera have netted, say from the Atlanta Braves? Glavine? Smoltz? Both?

[FVBrewerFan]

Door C. Win one WS, and be competitive the other 9 years, maybe winning another WS or two.

 

Reading all the comments, seems Door B would mean winning a WS and then being a bad team for 9 years. Gutting the farm, signing FAs, etc. to win that one WS. But I think you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

Key is to continue to add talent to the system. They are #1 now, top 5, whatever. That is great, but it needs to be sustained. Then, once this team is truly competitive they will have options to maximize chances of winning WS in a given year. They can swing a trade without gutting the system, if they're deep enough. They can sign a FA without strangling the team long-term. Garza is coming off, and Braun will too one way or another within 4 years. And there is nobody on the current roster who will demand a big contract for next 5 years, with the possible exception of Villar.

 

Cleveland has done this, and they were up 3-1 in the WS. Texas has done it, haven't won a WS but they have remained competitive despite trading prospects away. If the Brewers had a top 5 system in 2011 they would have been able to swing another trade that may have taken them over the top, without gutting the system.

[monty57]

Door C. Win one WS, and be competitive the other 9 years, maybe winning another WS or two.

 

Reading all the comments, seems Door B would mean winning a WS and then being a bad team for 9 years. Gutting the farm, signing FAs, etc. to win that one WS. But I think you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

Key is to continue to add talent to the system. They are #1 now, top 5, whatever. That is great, but it needs to be sustained. Then, once this team is truly competitive they will have options to maximize chances of winning WS in a given year. They can swing a trade without gutting the system, if they're deep enough. They can sign a FA without strangling the team long-term. Garza is coming off, and Braun will too one way or another within 4 years. And there is nobody on the current roster who will demand a big contract for next 5 years, with the possible exception of Villar.

 

Cleveland has done this, and they were up 3-1 in the WS. Texas has done it, haven't won a WS but they have remained competitive despite trading prospects away. If the Brewers had a top 5 system in 2011 they would have been able to swing another trade that may have taken them over the top, without gutting the system.

 

Agree. Tampa didn't fall because they're small market. They fell because Friedman left for the Dodgers and the new GM didn't follow in his footsteps. The Twins fell because they were kind of forced to sign the hometown boy Mauer to a monster deal rather than trading him away to stock the system with young talent. The A's decided that they would allow a book to be written that would tell the world how they were winning, so they lost their advantage. Any strategy will fail if you stop implementing it, or are dumb/arrogent enough to tell your opponents all your secrets.

 

Yes, there is an unbalanced playing field in the majors, but the way pre-arby/arby is set up, smaller revenue teams can be competitive. It just takes willingness to stick to a plan that will not always be loved by fans. And while I agree there is an unbalanced playing field, it's not like being in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles guarantees World Series victories. Winning in any market takes a long-term plan by the owner with a GM who has the ability to carry out that plan.

 

The best way, in my opinion, for a smaller market team to have a chance of being competitive on a relatively regular basis, is to take advantage of the system that seriously underpays guys for their first six years in the league. With enough of these guys, even small revenue teams can afford some higher priced players. The collapse a couple of seasons ago followed up by the horrendous start the following year seems to have been the blow that opened Attanasio's eyes to this and he has seemingly stepped away from the strategy of trying to build a winning team year-to-year by paying for guys whose names the fans knew to the strategy of building a winning franchise on a long-term basis by stockpiling as much young talent as possible at all levels. With that change in mindset, he went out and hired a guy who looks to be good at implementing this strategy.

 

I'm enjoying these years, because even though the MLB team is playing losing baseball, they're on an upward trend and I think that in the not-too-distant future there will be a lot of winning baseball in Milwaukee for years to come.

[DuWayne Steurer]

This question is based on a hypothetical premise that doesn't apply in actual real world baseball though. There is no scenario in which you can guarantee a world series victory. Even assuming the Brewers could assemble the "best" team, (which is going to be difficult, given payroll limitations,) that is not even close to a guarantee of winning the world series.

 

Getting into the playoffs is, and always will be the best bet of winning the whole thing. I'd be curious to see how often the team with the best overall record even wins the world series. I'm guessing less than 40% of the time, just off the top of my head.

[sveumrules]

1903-68 (before divisions, 2 teams in postseason) 37 of 65 WS winners had best regular season record, 57%.

 

1969-93 (divisions added, 4 teams in postseason) 7 of 25 WS winners had best regular season record, 28%.

 

1995-2016 (wild card era, 8/10 teams in postseason) 5 of 22 WS winners had best regular season record, 23%.

[pete]

Would the Braves be considered mid-market when they had that long run of competitiveness?

[FVBrewerFan]

Real question is, how often did the team with the worst record in the playoffs win the WS? Because I always see comments about how "they just need to make it in and they have a shot" or words to that effect. But is that even true?

 

Always knew the BEST team won far less than 50% of the time, but I'm guessing the worst team has almost never won.

[adambr2]

Real question is, how often did the team with the worst record in the playoffs win the WS? Because I always see comments about how "they just need to make it in and they have a shot" or words to that effect. But is that even true?

 

Always knew the BEST team won far less than 50% of the time, but I'm guessing the worst team has almost never won.

 

I remember the Cardinals winning it all with I think 83 wins sometime in the last 10 years or so. They were a WC the year they beat us in the NLCS and won it all too, not sure if they were the worst record playoff team without looking it up.

 

To me the big factor that makes it tougher for WC teams to win it all now is having to win the extra play in game. You can win 95, not win your division, play 1 game, and have it all gone.

[DuWayne Steurer]

1903-68 (before divisions, 2 teams in postseason) 37 of 65 WS winners had best regular season record, 57%.

 

1969-93 (divisions added, 4 teams in postseason) 7 of 25 WS winners had best regular season record, 28%.

 

1995-2016 (wild card era, 8/10 teams in postseason) 5 of 22 WS winners had best regular season record, 23%.

 

 

Thank you sir. I am at work and didn't have time to do this research. I knew it had to be less than 40% during the WC era.

[Point Beer Is Best]

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Which one do you take? Which one would MA take?

Door B. You take the WS win. With 30 teams in the league, you're gold if you can win one in a decade. I think most people would take the guaranteed WS, including Mark A. But that's not how the game works, because no one can guarantee a championship.

 

And the best way to win a championship is getting into the dance as often as possible with the best team you can afford. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

I agree that the two scenarios are set up somewhat odd, in that does Door B mean that they were a borderline playoff team that sells the farm for one go-for-it year that ends up with WS title? Because if they only make the playoffs that one year, they obviously have failed to develop the talent required to be competitive on an annual basis.

 

Maybe instead (all playoff outcomes uncertain, as they all are):

 

Door A - 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years, with 4 division titles, 4 Wild Cards. Team generally finishes 3rd to 5th in terms of record in the NL. Team does not significantly borrow from the future to acquire rental pieces, but may for longer-term players (think Chris Sale rather than Sabathia or even Zack Grienke).

 

Door B - 3 playoff appearances in next 10 years, as Brewers bolster the MLB club when it first tastes the playoffs by acquiring multiple key pieces via prospects. Team wins 3 division titles, peaking with best record in NL. Team cycles into a rebuild window thereafter.

 

Which would you prefer?

[rickh150]

It seems most here are very knowledgeable fans, and most here believe the Brewers are on a good track. I feel the same. It will be interesting to see what we the organization does when it becomes a 90 win team. Will it stay the course, constantly acquiring young talent, not interested in the top free agents, not trading the top 100 prospect for a late reliever? Will Stearns make the really big trade or big move or will he value prospects/picks like a let's say Ted Thompson.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Door A - 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years, with 4 division titles, 4 Wild Cards. Team generally finishes 3rd to 5th in terms of record in the NL. Team does not significantly borrow from the future to acquire rental pieces, but may for longer-term players (think Chris Sale rather than Sabathia or even Zack Grienke).

 

I took a look at the MLB postseason participants from 2006-2016 - not a single organization made the playoffs 8 times during that stretch, with the closest being the Yankees, Dodgers, and Cards with 7. Door A is completely unrealistic for baseball's smallest market, so let's just cross that one off right now.

 

The simple answer is that Brewers' management shouldn't follow anyone else's model, because their situation is unique. They need to bring in talent from any possible options provided it makes financial sense to the longterm health of the organization. $ will always be the problem for the Brewers, no matter how much we wish it isn't. That's what we get for being fans of a perpetual underdog playing in a league with vast financial discrepancies based on a combination of market sizes and owner's pocketbooks.

 

Melvin did a great job of maximizing the last window of contention at the MLB level - organizations go through ebbs and flows of farm system strength independent of how they build their MLB roster due to how fickle prospect development can be with even the best minor league tutelage. I think the one thing the Brewers absolutely have to do is overhaul their minor league development/instructional staff to try and do everything possible to maximize production out of their homegrown young, cost-controlled talent. An extra million added to the budget at the instructional levels for facilities and prized staff salaries goes alot further than bumping the MLB payroll by 10 million to add a #5 starter, IMO.

[clancyphile]

Melvin did a great job of maximizing the last window of contention at the MLB level - organizations go through ebbs and flows of farm system strength independent of how they build their MLB roster due to how fickle prospect development can be with even the best minor league tutelage. I think the one thing the Brewers absolutely have to do is overhaul their minor league development/instructional staff to try and do everything possible to maximize production out of their homegrown young, cost-controlled talent. An extra million added to the budget at the instructional levels for facilities and prized staff salaries goes alot further than bumping the MLB payroll by 10 million to add a #5 starter, IMO.

 

That ten million for a #5 starter needs to go for more than just the staff. Put more in the amateur scouting - get better results from the 2nd-10th rounds. A lower miss rate in those rounds would be huge, as well as getting a couple of those late-round steals.

 

The best part is that is becomes a cycle that reinforces itself. If you can regularly develop Suters, Woodruffs, and Perrins - you don't have to go the free agent route, and that is more money to keep the good players in or to land that free agent to fill the gap.

 

Plus, more prospects means more trade chips - that makes the Greinke/Sabathia-type rentals more affordable. You don't clean out your entire farm system to make a real run for the title.

[rickh150]

Melvin did a great job of maximizing the last window of contention at the MLB level - organizations go through ebbs and flows of farm system strength independent of how they build their MLB roster due to how fickle prospect development can be with even the best minor league tutelage. I think the one thing the Brewers absolutely have to do is overhaul their minor league development/instructional staff to try and do everything possible to maximize production out of their homegrown young, cost-controlled talent. An extra million added to the budget at the instructional levels for facilities and prized staff salaries goes alot further than bumping the MLB payroll by 10 million to add a #5 starter, IMO.

 

That ten million for a #5 starter needs to go for more than just the staff. Put more in the amateur scouting - get better results from the 2nd-10th rounds. A lower miss rate in those rounds would be huge, as well as getting a couple of those late-round steals.

 

The best part is that is becomes a cycle that reinforces itself. If you can regularly develop Suters, Woodruffs, and Perrins - you don't have to go the free agent route, and that is more money to keep the good players in or to land that free agent to fill the gap.

 

Plus, more prospects means more trade chips - that makes the Greinke/Sabathia-type rentals more affordable. You don't clean out your entire farm system to make a real run for the title.

 

 

Problem is, almost everybody has more money for whatever (including scouts),everybody wants a great minor league system, and most have an advantage at getting overseas talent (Ironically, the ONLY reason we have a top minor league system is that we emptied the major league team for it).We would have to make up this disadvantage by hitting big with multiple drafts and lopsided trades to be in such a luxurious position to be good in the majors AND have a quality farm system.

[sveumrules]

Real question is, how often did the team with the worst record in the playoffs win the WS? Because I always see comments about how "they just need to make it in and they have a shot" or words to that effect. But is that even true?

 

Always knew the BEST team won far less than 50% of the time, but I'm guessing the worst team has almost never won.

 

The team with the worst regular season record of the teams in the playoff field has won four of twenty two World Series in the wild card era compared to five of twenty two for the team with the best regular season record in the playoff field.

[brewerfan82]

Just out of curiosity, I broke down the wild card era WS teams a little further:

 

- One of the top 2 teams won the WS 31.8% of the time

- One of the teams in the top half (other than the top 2) won the WS 31.8% of the time

- One of the teams in the bottom half (other than the bottom 2) won the WS 18.2% of the time

- One of the bottom 2 teams won the WS 18.2% of the time

 

Overall a top half team won the WS 63.6% of the time compared to bottom half teams winning the WS 36.4% of the time. 22 years of data is probably still a fairly small sample size, but it seems like better teams do tend to have a better chance in the playoffs.

[clancyphile]

That ten million for a #5 starter needs to go for more than just the staff. Put more in the amateur scouting - get better results from the 2nd-10th rounds. A lower miss rate in those rounds would be huge, as well as getting a couple of those late-round steals.

 

The best part is that is becomes a cycle that reinforces itself. If you can regularly develop Suters, Woodruffs, and Perrins - you don't have to go the free agent route, and that is more money to keep the good players in or to land that free agent to fill the gap.

 

Plus, more prospects means more trade chips - that makes the Greinke/Sabathia-type rentals more affordable. You don't clean out your entire farm system to make a real run for the title.

 

 

Problem is, almost everybody has more money for whatever (including scouts),everybody wants a great minor league system, and most have an advantage at getting overseas talent (Ironically, the ONLY reason we have a top minor league system is that we emptied the major league team for it).We would have to make up this disadvantage by hitting big with multiple drafts and lopsided trades to be in such a luxurious position to be good in the majors AND have a quality farm system.

 

I agree.

 

The key is to get a better farm system WITHOUT having to empty the major league roster, and hitting big on multiple drafts is the way to do it.

 

The best way is to avoid seeing players in rounds 2-10 flame out. Get more like 2010, where the second-rounder was a mid-rotation starter and the third-rounder became the closer before he was the centerpiece in a trade. Now like 2002 where the second rounder is better known for winning the Bachelorette (and then breaking up with her). Hit on those picks, and the Crew can do more trades like Sneed-for-Villar. The next-best way is to get more of these late-round gems like Manny Parra, Lorenzo Cain, and Brent Suter. This last draft has three I really love in Gabriel Garcia, Ronnie Gideon and Weston Wilson. Imagine if those three hit.

[monty57]

The key is to get a better farm system WITHOUT having to empty the major league roster, and hitting big on multiple drafts is the way to do it.

 

I agree, and the draft is an important part of it. Teams also have to be willing to trade away "proven" MLB players when a talented prospect is ready to jump to the big leagues. Keeping a stockpile of young, cheap, controllable talent is what will allow smaller market teams to afford to have some higher-priced guys on the roster.

 

Ideally, your stars will be homegrown, and you can extend them to a somewhat team friendly deal early in their careers. But, if you have some free cash and/or an excess amount of talent on the farm, star players can be acquired via free agency or trade. Small market teams just can't build a contender if they are too reliant on free agency and trades to acquire MLB talent. They have to maintain a strong farm.

[adambr2]

The key is to get a better farm system WITHOUT having to empty the major league roster, and hitting big on multiple drafts is the way to do it.

 

I agree, and the draft is an important part of it. Teams also have to be willing to trade away "proven" MLB players when a talented prospect is ready to jump to the big leagues. Keeping a stockpile of young, cheap, controllable talent is what will allow smaller market teams to afford to have some higher-priced guys on the roster.

 

Ideally, your stars will be homegrown, and you can extend them to a somewhat team friendly deal early in their careers. But, if you have some free cash and/or an excess amount of talent on the farm, star players can be acquired via free agency or trade. Small market teams just can't build a contender if they are too reliant on free agency and trades to acquire MLB talent. They have to maintain a strong farm.

 

Yep, agreed totally. In theory, a small market team can stay near the top forever with the right formula.

 

- Draft well (obviously the better you are, the lower you're drafting, but the competitive balance round helps)

 

- Extend a very select few of your homegrown players. The earlier the better because the more you'll save, but you better be right about the ones you extend, big wrong investments will get you in trouble quickly. We obviously dodged a bullet with Prince, and the more deals you can do like Lucroy's, the better.

 

- Trade as high as you can on your trade pieces, no matter how competitive you are or aren't. Obviously this is much harder said than done. Not only do you have to figure out where 'high' is, but you have to be willing to sell off pieces when you're competitive. It's a continuous cycle, but probably the only way to stay continuously competitive as a small market without a rebuild. Emotionally it's nearly impossible to trade a star away in a year where you're contending.

 

Clearly doing all these things to perfection is nearly impossible which is why the longer a small marker can sustain a winning model, the more impressive it is.

[Ennder]

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Which one do you take? Which one would MA take?

 

I would take Door A and I imagine MA would as well. A team that is consistently in the playoffs is going to trump one that just is a flash in the pan one year in fan excitement and entertainment.

[torts]

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Which one do you take? Which one would MA take?

no one can guarantee a championship.

 

 

false. Theo Epstein can.

[rickh150]

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Which one do you take? Which one would MA take?

no one can guarantee a championship.

 

 

false. Theo Epstein can.

 

Three in big markets is not as impressive as one in a small market.... Dayton Moore trumps it.

[clancyphile]

The key is to get a better farm system WITHOUT having to empty the major league roster, and hitting big on multiple drafts is the way to do it.

 

I agree, and the draft is an important part of it. Teams also have to be willing to trade away "proven" MLB players when a talented prospect is ready to jump to the big leagues. Keeping a stockpile of young, cheap, controllable talent is what will allow smaller market teams to afford to have some higher-priced guys on the roster.

 

Ideally, your stars will be homegrown, and you can extend them to a somewhat team friendly deal early in their careers. But, if you have some free cash and/or an excess amount of talent on the farm, star players can be acquired via free agency or trade. Small market teams just can't build a contender if they are too reliant on free agency and trades to acquire MLB talent. They have to maintain a strong farm.

 

Yep, agreed totally. In theory, a small market team can stay near the top forever with the right formula.

 

- Draft well (obviously the better you are, the lower you're drafting, but the competitive balance round helps)

 

- Extend a very select few of your homegrown players. The earlier the better because the more you'll save, but you better be right about the ones you extend, big wrong investments will get you in trouble quickly. We obviously dodged a bullet with Prince, and the more deals you can do like Lucroy's, the better.

 

- Trade as high as you can on your trade pieces, no matter how competitive you are or aren't. Obviously this is much harder said than done. Not only do you have to figure out where 'high' is, but you have to be willing to sell off pieces when you're competitive. It's a continuous cycle, but probably the only way to stay continuously competitive as a small market without a rebuild. Emotionally it's nearly impossible to trade a star away in a year where you're contending.

 

Clearly doing all these things to perfection is nearly impossible which is why the longer a small marker can sustain a winning model, the more impressive it is.

 

If you have a good farm system, you get the flexibility with extensions. You also need to come up with good insurance policies to cover salary in cases like this. Thus, if I had a core like Fielder, Lucroy, and Braun... I try to keep them together.

 

But much of it comes down to the farm system. Having a very good farm system with a constant flow of talent means the team can absorb even a Prince Fielder suffering a career-ending injury.

 

Honestly, when I think about it, it's why I am frustrated the Brewers did sign Milone. Why spend on a free-agent (even a cheap one) when you could give Suter, Woodruff, or some other pitcher the chance? Or even have them just fill the spot for a couple of years (another advantage - even if Suter completely bombs as a starter those years, you get good draft picks).

[MadScientist]

The key is to get a better farm system WITHOUT having to empty the major league roster, and hitting big on multiple drafts is the way to do it.

 

I agree, and the draft is an important part of it. Teams also have to be willing to trade away "proven" MLB players when a talented prospect is ready to jump to the big leagues. Keeping a stockpile of young, cheap, controllable talent is what will allow smaller market teams to afford to have some higher-priced guys on the roster.

 

Ideally, your stars will be homegrown, and you can extend them to a somewhat team friendly deal early in their careers. But, if you have some free cash and/or an excess amount of talent on the farm, star players can be acquired via free agency or trade. Small market teams just can't build a contender if they are too reliant on free agency and trades to acquire MLB talent. They have to maintain a strong farm.

 

Yep, agreed totally. In theory, a small market team can stay near the top forever with the right formula.

 

- Draft well (obviously the better you are, the lower you're drafting, but the competitive balance round helps)

 

- Extend a very select few of your homegrown players. The earlier the better because the more you'll save, but you better be right about the ones you extend, big wrong investments will get you in trouble quickly. We obviously dodged a bullet with Prince, and the more deals you can do like Lucroy's, the better.

 

- Trade as high as you can on your trade pieces, no matter how competitive you are or aren't. Obviously this is much harder said than done. Not only do you have to figure out where 'high' is, but you have to be willing to sell off pieces when you're competitive. It's a continuous cycle, but probably the only way to stay continuously competitive as a small market without a rebuild. Emotionally it's nearly impossible to trade a star away in a year where you're contending.

 

Clearly doing all these things to perfection is nearly impossible which is why the longer a small marker can sustain a winning model, the more impressive it is.

 

If you have a good farm system, you get the flexibility with extensions. You also need to come up with good insurance policies to cover salary in cases like this. Thus, if I had a core like Fielder, Lucroy, and Braun... I try to keep them together.

 

But much of it comes down to the farm system. Having a very good farm system with a constant flow of talent means the team can absorb even a Prince Fielder suffering a career-ending injury.

 

Honestly, when I think about it, it's why I am frustrated the Brewers did sign Milone. Why spend on a free-agent (even a cheap one) when you could give Suter, Woodruff, or some other pitcher the chance? Or even have them just fill the spot for a couple of years (another advantage - even if Suter completely bombs as a starter those years, you get good draft picks).

Cheap veteran FA pitchers are a handy way to improve the talent in the system. They let you keep a guy in the minors and not worry about roster spot shuffles, and more importantly they are easy flips at the trade deadline.