Brewers open to moving anyone on the roster

[1992casey]

For anyone who wants to do a reread, here's the 2012 Lucroy extension topic:

 

Lucroy signs extension- Reportedly 5 years/$11 million

[FVBrewerFan]

How is the Houston/Chicago model any different than how Milwaukee built it's last contending team?

 

How are they different? They're not. The Brewers last contending team was built through the draft. Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hart, Lucroy, Yo, etc. Then they added a couple vets to try to put them over the top. Very similar to what the Astros and Cubs have done this year.

 

But the Brewers are not in the same position they were last time around. You can't just add a Greinke and a bat to this roster and compete next year. There is no reason they shouldn't try hard to move Lucroy and Braun during the hot stove league.

[gregmag]

There's a dearth of truly good catchers out there. Sure, we can get a body in here to fill the spot. But many have recited the parade of ham-and-egger or career-downslide catchers this team went through after Surhoff & Nilsson and before Lucroy, and I'd rather not re-live that experience again in spite of some far-better-than-expected contributions from Eddie Perez, Keith Osik, Paul Bako, & Gregg Zaun (I shake my head as I type those names, both because they actually had decent MIL years and all the more because how lousy some of the others proved to be).

 

I'd suggest that whomever will be the next solid, upper-end, everyday catcher for the Brewers after Lucroy (whenever that time does come) is quite possibly not anywhere near the Brewers' organization right now.

 

So to say Lucroy's easily replaceable is conjecture at best, wishful thinking for sure, and certainly not definitive at the least in terms of anything near the caliber of player he's been to date.

 

I get the logic of why he could be a very lucrative (no pun intended) trade chip. However, prospects aren't guaranteed. For every Gomez/Fiers trade, there's a Johan Santana-to-the-Mets deal. Some deals you win, some you lose. In the case of Lucroy, I'm inclined to lean toward the bird in the hand vs. the two prospect birds in the bush. Yes, Lucroy's in his prime years now. Nothing's guaranteed as players age, especially through their 30s. But some players also continue to improve for quite a while past the threshold of 30 and Lucroy strikes me as one who well could (with the universal caveat of maintaining good health).

 

(In case it helps to clarify my slant: I'm definitely a fan of the rebuild/retool/re-whatever. That's well underway. I'm not overly attached to Segura, Khris Davis, maybe even Gennett, and although I like Adam Lind as a player, I'd agree with those who figure that he probably has fewer games as a Brewer in front of him than he has behind him. I'm not, however, a fan of the total tear-down. The odds of that working meaningfully seem no better than the odds that it won't.)

 

You make a lot of good points here, but I think you have to combine them more systematically. Here's my crack at it:

 

We have to start by looking at the team's goals over the next several years. Let's say the goals include developing a young rotation over the next two years and contending beginning in 2018.

 

Then we have to ask how keeping Lucroy advances those goals. If we're trying to develop young pitchers at the MLB level, and we think Lucroy's catching skills can be very helpful in doing that, then he has some immediate value. If we think he's still a superior starting catcher in two years, then he also has future value for our expected contending team.

 

In assessing Lucroy's value, we have to make our best estimate of what his decline curve is going to look like, and we also have to think about the opportunity cost of his escalating salary.

 

Then we have to think about what we could get for him in a trade. Saying "prospects sometimes don't pan out" isn't really an answer to anything, but it's a factor to consider. What quality of prospects, discounted for likelihood of flaming out, could we realistically get for Lucroy now, or a year from now?

 

I think that's the right thought process. For me, it doesn't lead to a conclusive answer, because there's too much I don't know. At a gut level, I'm very conflicted about what to do with Lucroy. But I'm pretty sure smart people who have the data and know what to do with it can make a worthwhile judgment.

[MNBrew]

How is the Houston/Chicago model any different than how Milwaukee built it's last contending team?

 

How are they different? They're not. The Brewers last contending team was built through the draft. Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hart, Lucroy, Yo, etc. Then they added a couple vets to try to put them over the top. Very similar to what the Astros and Cubs have done this year.

 

But the Brewers are not in the same position they were last time around. You can't just add a Greinke and a bat to this roster and compete next year. There is no reason they shouldn't try hard to move Lucroy and Braun during the hot stove league.

The Brewers right now aren't yet at the same point they were "last time," either. I think the point isn't where the Brewers were in 2008, but where they were in 2005-2007, when the prospects were first starting to flourish in the bigs. That timeframe is the closer parallel to the Cubs & Astros of today.

 

The '08 Sabathia trade got them into the playoffs and the only meaningful loss over time was Michael Brantley (not to mention that by 2011, the next playoff year, Brantley still wasn't near the All-Star-caliber player he's finally become). The Sabathia trade probably more closely parallels Houston's trades this year for Kazmir & Gomez/Fiers.

 

The Brewers were several years into their "window" with the Braun/Fielder/Weeks/Gallardo/Hart/etc. core when they did the Greinke/Marcum trades. That would seem more to parallel KC's Cueto & Zobrist trades (although KC's really only been above sea level for a couple years now after decades of endless lousiness).

[reillymcshane]

How is the Houston/Chicago model any different than how Milwaukee built it's last contending team?

 

How are they different? They're not. The Brewers last contending team was built through the draft. Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hart, Lucroy, Yo, etc. Then they added a couple vets to try to put them over the top. Very similar to what the Astros and Cubs have done this year.

 

But the Brewers are not in the same position they were last time around. You can't just add a Greinke and a bat to this roster and compete next year. There is no reason they shouldn't try hard to move Lucroy and Braun during the hot stove league.

One big difference is that Milwaukee unloaded a large portion of young assets in 2008 and then 2011 and didn't have anyone to replace them. Brantly, Escobar, Lawrie, Cain, Odorizzi, Jeffress - it was a weak farm system, and when we dealt these guys it really left little else of quality to develop.

 

What Chicago or Houston or Pittsburgh or St. Louis or KC have done is built a sustainable winning system. It's not like they have a window of one year here, then one year there. They make some moves - such as dealing for Gomez and Fiers - and Houston still has a very good farm system to keep feeding the big league club. Milwaukee never had that.

 

Milwaukee did it right with Weeks, Hardy, Hart, Fielder, Sheets, Braun, etc. They dealt Overbay for young players and opened a hole for Prince. Good move. But then they drafted poorly, and instead of trying to retool by replenishing the system, they continued to borrow from the future to extend the chance of being competitive. Of our 'core' players, only Hardy was ever dealt (and that at his lowest value) for a young player. This lead to a lack of young (and cheap talent) coming up, meaning more and more positions were filled by bad players, or by mediocre players at high costs. We have traditionally let our players get old/bad/injured or leave for free agency before dealing them for young talent. That's a fine line - when to do deal someone and when not to - but we've just rarely done it until this year.

 

Chicago and Houston dealt virtually all their good players once they committed to a rebuild. Milwaukee has never had the stones to do that. Sentimentaility, poor vision, whatever - we've just rarely made deals the past 10 years to bolster the farm system.

 

Chicago and Houston have far better farm systems now than Milwaukee did in 2009 or 2012 (after we made the playoffs). Each of those teams could easily abandon their current plans, but we don't know where they will for sure go.

 

I don't have a problem with a team making a move to improve their club so they make the playoffs. I just don't like how we keep producing teams that, if I squint real hard, can see the playoffs. I want to have a team that's going to be in playoff contention for many years.

 

Sure, rebuilds can go awry. Bad drafts, injuries, etc. That's always the risk - but it shouldn't disuade us from taking that path.

[MrTPlush]

Never said there was one way, but in the Brewers situation and how they are as a franchise that should be the model they attempt to replicate. Sure we never know how prospects will end up, but I really don't know if Lucroy is even worth $16mil+ or if he will even be a catcher next time we are competing. It isn't like if we keep Lucroy we know what we have because we don't. I would rather take the risk on the prospects than pay big money for what will be an average at best injury prone catcher/1st baseman next time we are competing. I am not say we will make it to the promised land if we trade Lucroy. Because it is very possible we never do just like if we keep Lucroy.

 

The reason we had such horrible catchers before is because we didn't have any in the minors AND we didn't want to pay for one. If you are going to overpay for Lucroy to be around now why not just wait and overspend on a catcher in 3-4 years from now while taking elite prospects today? I really do not think in 4 years it will be that hard to find someone just as good or close to a 33-34 year old Lucroy. Lucroy's offense will decline notably by then and I'd personally be thrilled if he was still at catcher full time. For the $16mil we would have to pay Lucroy you really don't think we could find someone similar?

 

How is the Houston/Chicago model any different than how Milwaukee built it's last contending team? Or any different than Pittsburgh attempted about five times before they finally got it right. Don't get me wrong I think we have to rebuild to an extent. I just don't know if it makes any more sense to trade everyone and anyone than it does to try to retain some of them and build a competitive team in less than the five year plus total rebuild mode. Both Chicago and Houston have their holes as well. Thus the need to sign Lester or trade for Gomez. I also wonder if the future is any brighter for those two franchises than it was for Milwaukee in 2008 if they can't buy what they failed to draft and develop. An injury or two to the wrong players would set back a five year rebuild back as far as a two or three year one would.

 

Well as already stated all of those teams(Houston, Cubs, and Pirates) have refused to throw away a large portion of the future for MLB pieces. Something the Brewers opted not to do back in 2011 era. One of the other things the Cubs were popular for was picking up something not so flashy and try to flip that into something. Now whether the Brewers try to do that and gamble money is probably pretty doubtful, but you never know. Sometimes it takes longer(Pirates) because of failing on top picks. The Pirates did horrible when they first started drafting high and really only have Gerrit Cole to show for it so far.

[MadScientist]

I wonder if the Brewers a decade ago were hurt by the free agent compensation model. It seems like they were mostly content to keep decent (but not great) players until they were free agents and just pick up a few extra draft picks that didn't pan out. Jenkins, Clark, Davis, and possibly Helms could have been traded during or after the 2005 season, and Ohka could have been traded after. I will admit that it would have been tough to sell it at the time. We would have thought of the Brewer's a AAA team for big market teams.

[clancyphile]

I wonder if the Brewers a decade ago were hurt by the free agent compensation model. It seems like they were mostly content to keep decent (but not great) players until they were free agents and just pick up a few extra draft picks that didn't pan out. Jenkins, Clark, Davis, and possibly Helms could have been traded during or after the 2005 season, and Ohka could have been traded after. I will admit that it would have been tough to sell it at the time. We would have thought of the Brewer's a AAA team for big market teams.

 

In some ways, teams like the Brewers are the AAAA farm teams for the big-market teams like the Yankees - and I use the fourth A for real. We're the ones who filter out the young players who turn out well, and then the Yankees, White Sox, Dodgers, Angels, or some other big market team drops that $20-25 million per year deal the Crew can't match.

 

For me, the real problem is that the Brewers are having a paucity of success in rounds 2-10 of the June draft. Look at the picks who made the majors from 2001 to 2015. I have bolded the ones who have become significant contributors, and players in the latest Brewerfan.net Top 25 are in italics:

 

2001

JJ Hardy (2nd round)

Brad Nelson (4th round)

Dennis Sarfate (9th round)

 

2002

Tom Wilhelmsen (7th round - RELEASED)

 

2003

Tony Gwynn Jr. (2nd round)

 

2004

Yovani Gallardo (2nd round)

Angel Salome (5th round)

 

2005

Mat Gamel (4th round)

Michael Brantley (7th round - traded to CLE)

Jemile Weeks (8th round - not signed)

Steve Garrison (10th round - one appearance with the Yankees)

 

2006

Cole Gillespie (3rd round - TRADED)

Mike McClendon (10th round)

 

2007

Jon Lucroy (3rd round)

Eric Farris (4th round)

Caleb Gindl (5th round)

Eric Fryer (10th round - played with other major league teams)

 

2008

Logan Schafer (3rd round)

Erik Komatsu (8th round - TRADED)

 

2009

Josh Prince (3rd round)

Hiram Burgos (6th round)

Khris Davis (7th round)

 

2010

Jimmy Nelson (2nd round)

Tyler Thornburg (3rd round)

Yadiel Rivera (9th round)

 

2011

Jorge Lopez (2nd round)

Michael Reed (5th round)

David Goforth (7th round)

 

2012

Tyrone Taylor (2nd round)

Tyler Wagner (4th round)

 

2013

Devin Williams (2nd round)

 

2014

Monte Harrison (2nd round)

Cy Sneed (3rd round)

 

2015

Cody Ponce (2nd round)

Demi Orimoloye (4th round)

 

The Brewers need to hit a lot more in rounds 2-10. Really, I think they need to put more money into amatuer scouting, and they need to be willing to bust some of the draft caps to get the "less signable" picks that might fall to those rounds.

[tmwiese55]

good post Clancy. That's always been my stance on this as everyone blames those trades as to why our system has been weak, the draft/development is by far the biggest reason.

 

Also I think they got a little unlucky with players they could have potentially traded. They made the signings of buying out a couple years of FA moves that everyone likes with several players. But come the last year or two they got hurt or weren't good (Hart, Weeks, Hall, got lucky with Hardy that in spite of selling low they hit a HR with Gomez, got low back on Gallardo too). However, if those guys weren't hurt or underperforming who knows if they would have actually traded them rather than trying to keep the competitive window going.

[reillymcshane]

The Brewers farm system was bad because we traded our top prospects AND we drafted badly (I should stress that drafting badly is sometimes not the team's fault - a guy like Mat Gamel getting hurt like he did is really just bad luck). Then we didn't replenish the system in other ways, including not making trades for younger players, and doing poorly in the international market. Escobar and Peralta are the only decent Latin American players (that I can think of) who panned out over the past decade.

 

Ultimately, you need your organization to not only develop a good plan, but execute it properly. Pittsburgh is a good example of team that flailed around for 20 years. Even when they had good ideas (develop through the draft), the team made poor picks. You still have to execute the game plan properly.

 

I think Pittsburgh, about 7-8 years ago, really settled into a philosophy. They look for groundball type pitchers, they value defense, they use analytics (I think they are the most shift-happy team in the league), they value financial flexibility, they build through the draft. They put this in place and have stuck with it. You can debate their success (three playoff appearances - but quick exits each time), but they should be pretty good next year as well. They have five top 100 prospects in the MLB Pipeline, including a top 10 guy, and three others in the top 50.

 

I'm not saying we need to be exactly like the Pirates, but good orgs like them and St. Louis have a definite philosophy. They follow it (but aren't slaves to it), showing flexibility at times.

[LouisEly]

Let's also not forget that the Cubs and Astros have benefited from two significant changes to the draft system since 2010 - compensation for unsigned draft picks in rounds 1-3 (implemented in 2010) and the draft bonus pool (2012). These two things have added more certainty and reduced risk in drafting higher upside players. The Brewers didn't have those luxuries the years they had high picks, or even in 2009 when they had five picks in the first two rounds.

 

The Royals had eight consecutive years of top-10 picks - the Brewers had four (the Brewers had five of six years, but the Royals had 13 of 14 years). The Royals had much more spaghetti to throw against the wall to find some things that stick. Also, as I have mentioned several times, two of the three years that the Brewers had top five picks (2003, 2004) were two of the weakest drafts in history, and the year the Brewers had the #2 overall pick (2003) was perhaps the worst draft of the last 20 years.

 

My point is, it isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison of the Brewers with the Cubs/Astros/Pirates/Royals.

[reillymcshane]

Let's also not forget that the Cubs and Astros have benefited from two significant changes to the draft system since 2010 - compensation for unsigned draft picks in rounds 1-3 (implemented in 2010) and the draft bonus pool (2012). These two things have added more certainty and reduced risk in drafting higher upside players. The Brewers didn't have those luxuries the years they had high picks, or even in 2009 when they had five picks in the first two rounds.

 

The Royals had eight consecutive years of top-10 picks - the Brewers had four (the Brewers had five of six years, but the Royals had 13 of 14 years). The Royals had much more spaghetti to throw against the wall to find some things that stick. Also, as I have mentioned several times, two of the three years that the Brewers had top five picks (2003, 2004) were two of the weakest drafts in history, and the year the Brewers had the #2 overall pick (2003) was perhaps the worst draft of the last 20 years.

 

My point is, it isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison of the Brewers with the Cubs/Astros/Pirates/Royals.

The draft pool thing is huge. In the past, Milwaukee rarely ventured out of the slot area and thus generally played it safe with its picks. Other teams would take flyers on guys in the 3rd round, throw a buttload of money at them, and end up with the equivalent of 2 or 3 top picks. Also, guys would essentially hold teams hostage and say, "I won't sign unless I get xyz dollars." Teams like Milwaukee passed on these types - often some of the best players - for fear of the demands. That's no where near the issue anymore with the draft pool.

[jerichoholicninja]

Let's also not forget that the Cubs and Astros have benefited from two significant changes to the draft system since 2010 - compensation for unsigned draft picks in rounds 1-3 (implemented in 2010) and the draft bonus pool (2012). These two things have added more certainty and reduced risk in drafting higher upside players. The Brewers didn't have those luxuries the years they had high picks, or even in 2009 when they had five picks in the first two rounds.

 

The Royals had eight consecutive years of top-10 picks - the Brewers had four (the Brewers had five of six years, but the Royals had 13 of 14 years). The Royals had much more spaghetti to throw against the wall to find some things that stick. Also, as I have mentioned several times, two of the three years that the Brewers had top five picks (2003, 2004) were two of the weakest drafts in history, and the year the Brewers had the #2 overall pick (2003) was perhaps the worst draft of the last 20 years.

 

My point is, it isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison of the Brewers with the Cubs/Astros/Pirates/Royals.

The draft pool thing is huge. In the past, Milwaukee rarely ventured out of the slot area and thus generally played it safe with its picks. Other teams would take flyers on guys in the 3rd round, throw a buttload of money at them, and end up with the equivalent of 2 or 3 top picks. Also, guys would essentially hold teams hostage and say, "I won't sign unless I get xyz dollars." Teams like Milwaukee passed on these types - often some of the best players - for fear of the demands. That's no where near the issue anymore with the draft pool.

 

Can someone explain why the slotted draft makes it any different? I understand the pool and the slots but that really makes no difference to the player because the player can still demand what they want and the team has to sign them or lose draft money.

 

Take Carlos Correa as an example. He was drafted first overall despite not being a consensus #1 pick. Houston took him #1 so they could spend more money later in the draft. Why was it just assumed that Correa would take so much less? From his perspective, who really cares where he was ranked before the draft, he was the #1 overall pick of the draft and should be paid accordingly. He should have said, "This is how much my slot is allotted. That's how much I want and won't sign for less (or much less)." Now the Astros have to sign him or lose all that money and have their strategy go bust. Any why is it assumed that there will be good players available later in the draft that you can overpay to sign? To me, having "suggested" values for picks is stupid because the players can still demand whatever they want and the drafting team takes the hit if the player doesn't want to sign.

[logan82]

It leaves open the possibility that you sign a guy under slot. With a hard slot there is no hope at all of signing a guy under slot. Sure some guys can demand the whole slot value but it's not like you are out anything if they do.

[jerichoholicninja]

It leaves open the possibility that you sign a guy under slot. With a hard slot there is no hope at all of signing a guy under slot. Sure some guys can demand the whole slot value but it's not like you are out anything if they do.

 

Yes, I understand the whole underslot thing but no player shouldn't get almost the whole slot. The teams have no power in this situation. You either sign the player or lose the money. With slotting the league is saying "this is how much you are worth but you can sign for less than that if you want." There is no reason a player shouldn't sign for less than that.

[logan82]

It leaves open the possibility that you sign a guy under slot. With a hard slot there is no hope at all of signing a guy under slot. Sure some guys can demand the whole slot value but it's not like you are out anything if they do.

 

Yes, I understand the whole underslot thing but no player shouldn't get almost the whole slot. The teams have no power in this situation. You either sign the player or lose the money. With slotting the league is saying "this is how much you are worth but you can sign for less than that if you want." There is no reason a player shouldn't sign for less than that.

and if they do sign for under slot you get more money. If they think they can do better in the next draft is the only reason not to sign for under slot. It is hard to turn down guaranteed money.

[LouisEly]

The benefit of having a #1 overall pick when there is no clear #1 overall is that you can bring in 3-4 guys and say we'll give you $X - take it or leave it, for one of you it will be less than what the #1 overall pick can get but for two of you it will be more than what you will get as the #3 or lower pick. That's leverage. One of those 3-4 guys will not want to risk falling to #3 or lower and take the offer, leaving seven figures of cap space to spend on guys in later rounds.

[CheezWizHed]

Plus, the MLB isn't assigning "worth" to a draft slot, its assigning a cap dollar amount available.

 

If they wanted to assign "worth", they would fix the rules to prevent underslot signings.

[monty57]

Can someone explain why the slotted draft makes it any different? I understand the pool and the slots but that really makes no difference to the player because the player can still demand what they want and the team has to sign them or lose draft money.

 

Take Carlos Correa as an example. He was drafted first overall despite not being a consensus #1 pick. Houston took him #1 so they could spend more money later in the draft. Why was it just assumed that Correa would take so much less? From his perspective, who really cares where he was ranked before the draft, he was the #1 overall pick of the draft and should be paid accordingly. He should have said, "This is how much my slot is allotted. That's how much I want and won't sign for less (or much less)." Now the Astros have to sign him or lose all that money and have their strategy go bust. Any why is it assumed that there will be good players available later in the draft that you can overpay to sign? To me, having "suggested" values for picks is stupid because the players can still demand whatever they want and the drafting team takes the hit if the player doesn't want to sign.

 

I'll use the example of the Brewers with Medeiros. He was expected to be picked in the late first round, which would have paid him a certain amount of money. The Brewers drafted him earlier than he should have went, and told him "you will get less than the amount slotted for where we're picking you, but you will still get more then you would if we don't draft you and you go late in the first round." Mederios was happy to get more than expected (even though it was under slot value), and they used the extra draft pool money to help them sign Gatewood and Harrison who were "signability concerns."

 

They could potentially have had a better player by picking "best player available" and signing him to slot value, but they would not have been able to draft and sign Gatewood and Harrison.

[clancyphile]

It leaves open the possibility that you sign a guy under slot. With a hard slot there is no hope at all of signing a guy under slot. Sure some guys can demand the whole slot value but it's not like you are out anything if they do.

 

Yes, I understand the whole underslot thing but no player shouldn't get almost the whole slot. The teams have no power in this situation. You either sign the player or lose the money. With slotting the league is saying "this is how much you are worth but you can sign for less than that if you want." There is no reason a player shouldn't sign for less than that.

 

Which is why, if there is a deep draft, the Brewers should bust the draft pool.