Cubs, Astros, Royals - how to build?

[Eye Black]

You're never going to stay around for decade(s) at a time being a legit WS contender. It all goes in cycles and you have your windows to go for it. The Astros feel as though they are in that right now and I kind've agree with them. The Brewers had a similar window not too long ago and they did not get it done but sometimes you have to take chances.

Doug Melvin had a very similar theory that small market teams best chance for success was in short "windows" where they could go for it. I don't believe the goal of the current rebuild is to experience a roller coaster of success and failure over the next couple of decades. In my opinion the goal is to succeed at the elements outlined above by reillymcshane and sustain success over many, many years. As he mentions, using the Cardinals as the model shows its possible. Since 2000 the Cardinals have had only one losing season, with 90 or more wins ten times during that span, and three 100-plus win seasons.

[1992casey]

I think that if you're building and maintaining properly, it's reasonable to expect an off season here and there. That might be the result of patience rather than panicking.

 

More often than not, it seems that when full-fledged rebuilds become necessary, they're implemented as a means to clean up a mess that could have potentially been avoided.

[homer]

There is no way to build the perfect team. Get to the playoffs and get hot at the right time has been the theme, nothing else. The past 10 world series winners have all been built differently and all have just been the team that got hot late and had some luck with health. The Royals team as an example is not built any better than the Pirates, they just got hot late. It is all a mirage. Happen to be the team that plays well late in the season and you win it all, just like in the NFL. Being the best or building it the right way is not really the key.

 

 

I agree that there are different ways to build a team but I'd be curious to know how often a WS winner "got hot" late in the year. My uneducated guess is they were usually pretty good the whole year.

 

EDIT: Checked on the Royals from last year. They were 11 - 17 in September. Giants in 2014 were 13 - 12 in Sept. Be interested to see how that compares historically.

[LouisEly]

The Cardinals have done lots of things well... and not gotten too heavily invested in old free agents.

 

Well, no, this is not true. They have Molina signed through age 34 at $14.5M/year (the contract was 10/$96.5M, so they took a pretty big risk signing him for 10 years at age 25), Peralta is signed through age 35 at $13M/year, Holliday is signed through age 36 at $17M/year (7/$120M deal), Wainwright is signed through age 36 at $19.5M/year, they paid Carlos Beltran $13M/year for ages 35 and 36, they paid Jake Westbrook >$8M/year through age 35, gave Lance Berkman $10M/year for ages 35 and 36, and gave Chris Carpernter eight figures through age 38.

 

They've invested pretty heavily in paying guys through their mid-30's.

[logan82]

There is no way to build the perfect team. Get to the playoffs and get hot at the right time has been the theme, nothing else. The past 10 world series winners have all been built differently and all have just been the team that got hot late and had some luck with health. The Royals team as an example is not built any better than the Pirates, they just got hot late. It is all a mirage. Happen to be the team that plays well late in the season and you win it all, just like in the NFL. Being the best or building it the right way is not really the key.

Right, so the best way to build a team is to make a team that will get into the playoffs as much as possible and hope you are hot at the right time. With a smaller market we need to have success drafting and developing players if we want sustained success. We let our talent get funneled into just a few players with little talent coming up in the minors.

[stalton]

I see our rebuild as similar to the 2000/2001 Florida Marlins. You know, minus the Moria debacle.

[jerichoholicninja]

I think the answer is obvious on how to build. The question is how to maintain. Minus the Cubs, the teams we're talking about aren't going to be able to retain the good players they acquire and develop. I just read that Cain, Moustakas, Hosmer, Escobar, and Davis will all be free agents after the 2017 season. There is no way the Royals can keep all those guys around and they're losing Gordon. Yes, a few will be traded to replenish but trading away established stars for young players and prospects guarantees nothing - see the Greinke trade. Until some small market team can figure out how to keep their really good players until they're 31 or 32 the boom/bust, window theory, whatever you want to call it strategy is all you got.

[MNBrew]

There is no way to build the perfect team. Get to the playoffs and get hot at the right time has been the theme, nothing else. The past 10 world series winners have all been built differently and all have just been the team that got hot late and had some luck with health. The Royals team as an example is not built any better than the Pirates, they just got hot late. It is all a mirage. Happen to be the team that plays well late in the season and you win it all, just like in the NFL. Being the best or building it the right way is not really the key.

 

 

I agree that there are different ways to build a team but I'd be curious to know how often a WS winner "got hot" late in the year. My uneducated guess is they were usually pretty good the whole year.

 

EDIT: Checked on the Royals from last year. They were 11 - 17 in September. Giants in 2014 were 13 - 12 in Sept. Be interested to see how that compares historically.

The Cardinals of 2011 are the perfect example of a team getting hot late. They ONLY made the playoffs by the skin of their teeth because of an epic run of their own AND an epic collapse by Atlanta. Then they laid waste to everyone in the playoffs and won the WS.

[Eye Black]

Thought this point that Dave Cameron made in his Fangraphs chat yesterday was a good one, and worth sharing here since it seems to parallel what Sterns has done so far in acquiring guys like Villar, Middlebrooks, Nieuwenhais, Walsh, Carter, Betancourt, Broxton. They won't all work out obviously, but using the rebuild to take a chance on enough undervalued guys with talent should ultimately help them find some assets who can become either tradable commodities or key core pieces to the next competitive team in Milwaukee.

 

Question: Do you think the tank-to-rebuild strategy looks more appealing/foolproof than it really is right now because of how smoothly it went for the Astros and (especially) the Cubs? Not that it’s a bad strategy (the CBA obviously encourages it)…but it’s hard to imagine it consistently working out as well as it has for the Cubs and Astros (in part because most owners probably aren’t patient enough to stick to the full process).

 

Dave Cameron: I think people who believe the Cubs and Astros rebuilds were based around tanking for high draft picks haven’t been paying attention. Yes, the Astros got Correa with the #1 pick, but they also got Appel and the Brady Aiken mess, and the Astros were winning before they called Correa up last year. They didn’t get Keuchel, McHugh, Altuve, Rasmus, etc… through tanking.

 

They took advantage of non-competitive seasons to not just stockpile picks, but to acquire undervalued assets and take shots on guys who deserved them. That’s just as important as getting a good draft bonus pool. The idea that you can suck on purpose, get a bunch of good picks, and easily turn things around based on those picks, is not true.

[jerichoholicninja]

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Royals the next few years after they gave out those big contracts to Gordon and Kennedy and spent money on Soria. They just did exactly what a team in their position shouldn't be doing.

[DuWayne Steurer]

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Royals the next few years after they gave out those big contracts to Gordon and Kennedy and spent money on Soria. They just did exactly what a team in their position shouldn't be doing.

 

 

Agree. Even though the Gordon contract wasn't a huge over-pay, I still didn't like it for them. He's 31, and previously, a lot of his value came from his defense. How long will he continue to be an elite defender?

 

And Ian Kennedy hasn't been good since 2011.

 

Not sure why they're throwing buckets of money around like this.

[MKE81]

Thought this point that Dave Cameron made in his Fangraphs chat yesterday was a good one, and worth sharing here since it seems to parallel what Sterns has done so far in acquiring guys like Villar, Middlebrooks, Nieuwenhais, Walsh, Carter, Betancourt, Broxton. They won't all work out obviously, but using the rebuild to take a chance on enough undervalued guys with talent should ultimately help them find some assets who can become either tradable commodities or key core pieces to the next competitive team in Milwaukee.

 

Question: Do you think the tank-to-rebuild strategy looks more appealing/foolproof than it really is right now because of how smoothly it went for the Astros and (especially) the Cubs? Not that it’s a bad strategy (the CBA obviously encourages it)…but it’s hard to imagine it consistently working out as well as it has for the Cubs and Astros (in part because most owners probably aren’t patient enough to stick to the full process).

 

Dave Cameron: I think people who believe the Cubs and Astros rebuilds were based around tanking for high draft picks haven’t been paying attention. Yes, the Astros got Correa with the #1 pick, but they also got Appel and the Brady Aiken mess, and the Astros were winning before they called Correa up last year. They didn’t get Keuchel, McHugh, Altuve, Rasmus, etc… through tanking.

 

They took advantage of non-competitive seasons to not just stockpile picks, but to acquire undervalued assets and take shots on guys who deserved them. That’s just as important as getting a good draft bonus pool. The idea that you can suck on purpose, get a bunch of good picks, and easily turn things around based on those picks, is not true.

 

Actually, I don't believe the mind set is "tank and rebuild". This is a cultural transformation and with that requires drastic changes to the current structure. This doesn't mean it's a "tank job" mind set. It means the org now values defense, contact/getting on base/understanding the strike zone, intelligence, versatility and such - things the org didn't value previously. In order to thrive within this changing culture it requires trading away pieces that don't align with this philosophy in combination with evaluating current MLB player contracts/age/etc and how they fit within this shift long-term (ie Lucroy is about to be a 30yr old catcher with 2yrs remaining so he'll be traded - also has value). In order to accomplish this Stearns is doing what he should be doing - acquiring young, controllable talent. With that comes players with limited MLB experience but a skill set that can potentially translate well and contribute to competing and winning in a new mold from years prior. Now, while the team might only win 65 games in 2016 that doesn't mean it's an intentional "let's put junk on the field so we get high draft picks for a couple years". The strategy is, while we might take one step backwards we'll take several steps forward relatively quickly thereafter given the cultural shift and, in doing so, we're going to give young talent every chance to prove they belong on this team moving forward regardless of what that role is (ie Villar, Broxton, Walsh, Carter, etc) or if they break out they're now traded/packaged for younger talent. If this strategy stays consistent over Stearns' tenure then it's not a "rebuild". It's a transformation.

 

I believe Lucroy, and others, have said this "rebuild" is around 3-5yrs area. Meaning there will be 3-5yrs of losing. I don't believe this at all. In 2017, barring injury and massive setbacks performance wise this year, the Brewers are looking at sizable upgrades on both sides of the ball at SS, CF, 3b (if Cecchini gets back to his earlier approach) and most likely 2b. Personally, I'd include Santana as a sizable upgrade over Davis if he can continue the path of success he's had the previous 2yrs in AAA, even if he hits 10HR+ fewer. 1b and C we have no idea about. That's guaranteed 4-5 position spots + Braun heading into next season. Now add in Lopez, Hader as they should be upgrades over two SPs in the rotation as well. The bullpen has a few strong arms coming in 2017 too. And this doesn't even include anybody in return from Lucroy, Davis, etc trades or other FA signings. This team can be in pretty good shape heading into 2017 and definitely the following year after these guys get a full season of play at the MLB level. They'll be exciting to watch

[Boomer5]

You can't possibly believe the Brewer's offseason has made the MLB roster better?

[JohnBriggs12]

Royals were bottom feeders for 2 decades, drafting year after year in the top 10. They struck gold with Greinke as the 6th overall pick in 2002 and turned him and some better drafts in more recent years into the core of their current team. Losing like they did for 2 decades isn't exactly appealing Though even this team has benefitted greatly by failures of the two big market teams in their division, the Tigers and White Sox.

 

Cubs and Astros went through historically bad seasons, with dramatic attendance drops that they could afford with much bigger local television and radio deals. They also have ability to compliment a young core with top of the line FA.

 

I see Brewers purposely tanking this offseason, something they didn't really have to do. They got good returns with guys close to the majors in season last year for Gomez and Parra, but settled for nothing that enhances their chances the next 4-5 years for Lind. That made no sense. They could have kept Lind to start the year or even tried to extend him a couple years, found a bona fide major league CF in FA as a placeholder and held on to a valuable bench bat/platoon option in Rogers, and had a decent major league lineup that would have been better upon the arrival of Arcia. They also could have found a veteran arm to add to the mix but they seem content with trying to milk something out of the awful Garza deal even if that means him starting every 5th day and watching him get lit up but the good teams.

 

I guess we can be thankful things don't appear to be quite as bad as in Cincinnati, but the Reds don't have Cub fans in their back yard making things even more miserable.

[Boomer5]

Royals were bottom feeders for 2 decades, drafting year after year in the top 10. They struck gold with Greinke as the 6th overall pick in 2002 and turned him and some better drafts in more recent years into the core of their current team. Losing like they did for 2 decades isn't exactly appealing Though even this team has benefitted greatly by failures of the two big market teams in their division, the Tigers and White Sox.

 

Cubs and Astros went through historically bad seasons, with dramatic attendance drops that they could afford with much bigger local television and radio deals. They also have ability to compliment a young core with top of the line FA.

 

I see Brewers purposely tanking this offseason, something they didn't really have to do. They got good returns with guys close to the majors in season last year for Gomez and Parra, but settled for nothing that enhances their chances the next 4-5 years for Lind. That made no sense. They could have kept Lind to start the year or even tried to extend him a couple years, found a bona fide major league CF in FA as a placeholder and held on to a valuable bench bat/platoon option in Rogers, and had a decent major league lineup that would have been better upon the arrival of Arcia. They also could have found a veteran arm to add to the mix but they seem content with trying to milk something out of the awful Garza deal even if that means him starting every 5th day and watching him get lit up but the good teams.

 

I guess we can be thankful things don't appear to be quite as bad as in Cincinnati, but the Reds don't have Cub fans in their back yard making things even more miserable.

 

Yeah, Stearns really got taken in the Lind trade. Hopefully he learned and wont make the same mistakes in the Luc/Braun/Davis trades. The age and player profiles don't fit a team that has any interest in winning for 5 years. That was not the case in the Astros trade, which might have been Melvin's best.

 

I do think the tanking strategy is a good one though. Milwaukee wont ever be truly elite without a top farm system. Not a good farm system, but rather a top 1 to 3 farm system. Its not a coincidence Stearns was hired from Houston and not say a top talent guy from StL or the Cubs.

[reillymcshane]

You can't possibly believe the Brewer's offseason has made the MLB roster better?

Better question: Has it made the organization better?

[ZBTMP]

.......................

We’ll hear from the Brewers again in about 2020.

 

There is nothing the baseball overlords can do about tanking, since owners have the free will to manage their teams as stupidly as they want. With the pot of shared MLB revenue growing each year, they can get by selling fewer tickets and less beer for a few years.

.......................

The Cardinals try to win every season because it pays off at the gate. Our National Pastime would be far more enjoyable if every other team shared that ambition.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jeff-gordon/gordo-some-mlb-teams-tanking-now-for-future-returns/article_795cd5e3-4c4a-5803-836c-79c0fdc4c8c0.html

 

St. Louis newspaper weighing in that lack of ambition is the Brewer's problem and it is making baseball less enjoyable for them.

 

No mention that the Cardinals try to win every season because the talent the organization has accumulated projects to win between 85-100 games.

[NYChez]

.......................

We’ll hear from the Brewers again in about 2020.

 

There is nothing the baseball overlords can do about tanking, since owners have the free will to manage their teams as stupidly as they want. With the pot of shared MLB revenue growing each year, they can get by selling fewer tickets and less beer for a few years.

.......................

The Cardinals try to win every season because it pays off at the gate. Our National Pastime would be far more enjoyable if every other team shared that ambition.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jeff-gordon/gordo-some-mlb-teams-tanking-now-for-future-returns/article_795cd5e3-4c4a-5803-836c-79c0fdc4c8c0.html

 

St. Louis newspaper weighing in that lack of ambition is the Brewer's problem and it is making baseball less enjoyable for them.

 

No mention that the Cardinals try to win every season because the talent the organization has accumulated projects to win between 85-100 games.

 

I miss the good ol' days of base ball when every team won 70-90 games, none of the teams stunk, and no team would consider trading their best players for prospects. I think those good ol' days end in around '93 ... 1893.

[splitterpfj]

MLB isn't like the NFL or the NBA - you're not just filling the roster, you're also filling the farm system.

 

To me, "tanking", is trying to lose on purpose - the Brewers aren't doing that, they are trying to improve the talent they've got, and at this point, the way to do that is to get multiple minor league players in exchange for MLB-level guys who won't be under contract when the big team is ready to run.

 

That's not tanking, that's an intelligent use of resources.

 

The Packers or Bucks could trade for an instant impact, but they can't trade for the guy they'll build around in five years. The Brewers can, and the Brewers should.

[jerichoholicninja]

.......................

We’ll hear from the Brewers again in about 2020.

 

There is nothing the baseball overlords can do about tanking, since owners have the free will to manage their teams as stupidly as they want. With the pot of shared MLB revenue growing each year, they can get by selling fewer tickets and less beer for a few years.

.......................

The Cardinals try to win every season because it pays off at the gate. Our National Pastime would be far more enjoyable if every other team shared that ambition.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jeff-gordon/gordo-some-mlb-teams-tanking-now-for-future-returns/article_795cd5e3-4c4a-5803-836c-79c0fdc4c8c0.html

 

St. Louis newspaper weighing in that lack of ambition is the Brewer's problem and it is making baseball less enjoyable for them.

 

No mention that the Cardinals try to win every season because the talent the organization has accumulated projects to win between 85-100 games.

 

Whoever that writer is can go eat a bag of balls...baseballs.

[Boomer5]

You can't possibly believe the Brewer's offseason has made the MLB roster better?

Better question: Has it made the organization better?

 

At this point right now? Id doubt one could make an argument the overall skill set is better. You'd have to be really optimistic to see value in the cast offs and very low arms we picked up to see value above a Lind and a KRod. While I 100% agree they had no place on the 2016 Brewers, they ARE legitimate major league key contributors and borderline All Stars, and no one we acquired fits that description.

 

The MLB roster is certainly by anyones evaluation worse, so that will help the 2017+ amateur infusion. So in that sense, yes the future is much brighter.

 

As for tanking, of course they are tanking. I do not see how this is even in debate. [sarcasm]How big a fanbase of Flores, Broxton, and Cecchini could there possibly be on this board?[/sarcasm]

 

What possible reason would they have to even look at trading Davis and Luc, two young cheap performers? Those are guys teams like Milwaukee, assuming they want to win, would consider to be gold. Luc is a very rate commodity and Davis just hit 20 HR's in Aug and September. Why would you trade them (presumably for prospects) if the goal was to win games at the major league level in 2016?

[BillScottCanRake]

What possible reason would they have to even look at trading Davis and Luc, two young cheap performers? Those are guys teams like Milwaukee, assuming they want to win, would consider to be gold. Luc is a very rate commodity and Davis just hit 20 HR's in Aug and September. Why would you trade them (presumably for prospects) if the goal was to win games at the major league level in 2016?

Just because the goal isn't to win in Milwaukee in 2016 doesn't mean the goal is to lose. And it doesn't mean winning isn't a goal, it just isn't a goal this year.

 

The immediate, short-term goal is to improve the level of talent in the entire system, from Arizona to Colorado Springs, by any means necessary, including at the expense of the talent in Milwaukee. One of the best ways to fill the cupboard is to trade proven guys for multiple prospects, and Lucroy and Davis are the dictionary definition of proven guys. And since the team only won 68 games last year anyways, it's not like trading Davis and Lucroy are going to cost them an 85-win season or something.

 

With that said, I do expect the 2016 Brewers to try to win the games on their schedule. It might not happen as much as we'd like given the relative talent on the roster, but I do think that every reasonable effort will be made to win as many games as possible. There will be a lot of young guys who are playing for their careers this year, so I expect this team will play hard. I also expect that Counsell, within reason, is going to manage to win, too. They are going to lose a lot of games, but it won't be on purpose.

[Invader3K]

 

No mention that the Cardinals try to win every season because the talent the organization has accumulated projects to win between 85-100 games.

 

Whoever that writer is can go eat a bag of balls...baseballs.

 

If the Brewers existed in a complete vacuum, then yes, their current strategy would be terrible. They aren't in a vacuum, though. They're in a highly competitive division right now with no realistic outlook to overtake the Cardinals, Cubs, Pirates, etc.

[FVBrewerFan]

Great, now the Cardinals and their minions are not only telling us how to play the game, but how to build a team.

[logan82]

You can't possibly believe the Brewer's offseason has made the MLB roster better?

Better question: Has it made the organization better?

 

At this point right now? Id doubt one could make an argument the overall skill set is better. You'd have to be really optimistic to see value in the cast offs and very low arms we picked up to see value above a Lind and a KRod. While I 100% agree they had no place on the 2016 Brewers, they ARE legitimate major league key contributors and borderline All Stars, and no one we acquired fits that description.

 

The MLB roster is certainly by anyones evaluation worse, so that will help the 2017+ amateur infusion. So in that sense, yes the future is much brighter.

 

As for tanking, of course they are tanking. I do not see how this is even in debate. [sarcasm]How big a fanbase of Flores, Broxton, and Cecchini could there possibly be on this board?[/sarcasm]

 

What possible reason would they have to even look at trading Davis and Luc, two young cheap performers? Those are guys teams like Milwaukee, assuming they want to win, would consider to be gold. Luc is a very rate commodity and Davis just hit 20 HR's in Aug and September. Why would you trade them (presumably for prospects) if the goal was to win games at the major league level in 2016?

The goal should always be to gather as much talent as you can at one level or close to the same level. They have done that since the middle of 2015. The overall talent of the organization may or may not be better but it is more concentrated in one area than it was in the past.