What do you do if the unexpected happens?

[JohnBriggs12]

Suppose a lot goes right for this team and heading into the All Star Break they are boasting a record of 50-40 and are within a game or two if not among the top two wild card teams?

 

Impossible you say? Perhaps, but I'd give this scenario at least a 5% chance of happening. This exact scenario played out in the 70's when for three straight seasons from 73-75, the Brewers were at or near the top of the division heading into July with lesser talent relative to the division than they have now.

 

Then what do you do if you're David Stearns and Mark Attanasio?

 

There's 3 options of course:

 

1. 2021-2023 be damned, lets go for it this year and 2018-2020 and go make a deal to get Quintana with a couple of your top prospects, keeping in mind Quintana is controllable through 2020. This assumes the young controllable guys in your lineup this year are performing very well.

 

2. Don't trust what your seeing and keep focused on the 3-5 years down the road and deal off as many assets as you can for more prospects.

 

3. Maybe let the season play out with no major moves, other than maybe dealing off a non-performing asset or making a swap of a veteran for another veteran that might help the final couple months.

 

The Brewer fan base has for the most part accepted the rebuild, but success on the field will create excitement and it will be tough for fans if they surrender from a position of what for 90 games has been a fun season.

[FVBrewerFan]

Option #2. If they are 50-40 somehow, it's not sustainable. Not sure who they even have left to sell off, but if someone wants a bullpen arm, or Guerra, Nelson, Peralta sure I would be dealing.

 

I get that's not easy to do when you're winning, but when your plan can be swayed by fan reaction it's time to step down as GM.

[Warning Track Power]

Option #2

 

I am not convinced the Brewers have the starting pitching in the organization yet to support the core of hitters that have arrived (Villar, Arcia, Santana) or should be coming soon (Brinson, Ray, Phillips, Diaz, Dubon, Erceg). If they are 50-40 and have deals in place that could somehow net them higher end pitching similar to Hader, then they absolutely have to make those deals.

[tmwiese55]

I'd lean towards #3. It's not like you'd be winning on the backs of old vets since we only have one on the roster. If you win with youth players playing, I mean, that's the dream isn't it?

 

I wouldn't do any short term trades trying to win now though. Something like Quintana is intriguing though due to the length of his control so he could be a piece of the next real winning title contending team, but i would imagine his price would be very steep and I'd rather not give away many long term assets since even if they sneak into the playoffs you still have next to no shot vs CHC and LAD and SF.

[adambr2]

Don't be fooled by false records if you don't believe your record is a good reflection of your talent. That was a big mistake on the part of the FO heading into 2015 and gave us a late start on the rebuild.

 

50-40 doesn't tell us a lot. Are we pretty much on par with last year but the bullpen has been surprisingly lights out and we're 12-3 in one run games? Probably not sustainable.

[FVBrewerFan]

I'd lean towards #3. It's not like you'd be winning on the backs of old vets since we only have one on the roster. If you win with youth players playing, I mean, that's the dream isn't it?

 

 

It is the dream if you're talking about Villar, Broxton, Santana, Arcia, Davies, Hader, etc.

 

But if they're 50-40, it means they've had big seasons from more than one of Guerra, Garza, Peralta, and Nelson. And I would definitely try to trade any/all of them if the opportunity is there. I would even be open to dealing Broxton or Santana if someone offered a deal similar to what we got for Gomez/Fiers or Lucroy/Jeffress. I'm not saying you actively try trading the younger guys, but they do have OF depth and if you can bring back some top flight pitching in return, I would listen to those offers.

[tmwiese55]

Forgot about Garza as an old guy, I expect nothing from him. Guys like Guerra, Peralta, Nelson are still controlled for several years. So sure they're not 23ish but you still have them for several years and Peralta/Nelson are still relatively young. Sure it's riskier as they could come back down or get hurt, but if you get a few years of good play from them you'll trade them for a heck of a lot more down the line than you will when they've essentially had 3 months of good play. Plus you'd have gotten the benefit of their good play.

 

Guerra is such a weird situation, but due to his length of control how advantageous would it be for a small market contender to have a bargain high quality starter like him when they're at contention point? Would be the equivalent of how CHC lucked out with Arrieta and Hendricks.

[monty57]

I'd lean towards #3. It's not like you'd be winning on the backs of old vets since we only have one on the roster. If you win with youth players playing, I mean, that's the dream isn't it?

 

I wouldn't do any short term trades trying to win now though. Something like Quintana is intriguing though due to the length of his control so he could be a piece of the next real winning title contending team, but i would imagine his price would be very steep and I'd rather not give away many long term assets since even if they sneak into the playoffs you still have next to no shot vs CHC and LAD and SF.

 

That sums it up pretty well.

 

We'd have the option of trading away a good OF prospect to help make the team better, as we have a pending logjam there, but otherwise I wouldn't want to trade away much in order to increase the odds for 2017. Brinson for a similarly talented young SP with lots of team control might be okay, but Brinson for a veteran SP at the end of his contract would not be okay.

 

That said, I wouldn't fire sale MLB assets. If they're playing well, we could always trade guys like Nelson and Peralta in the offseason, as they have plenty of team control.

[adambr2]

I also think that you need to approach each individual move uniquely and individually. Not every move while contending needs to be a prospects for players deal, and not every move while rebuilding needs to be players for prospects. (see: Sneed for Villar).

 

So going back to the previous example, say we're in a possible position to contend in late July, and our OF crop is looking best case scenario. Broxton is for real, Santana is breaking out, Phillips, Harrison, and Clark are rebounding, Brinson is ready, and Ray has given us no reason to think he won't be a fast riser. If we have a chance to make a move with the OF excess for something we could use sooner, I wouldn't be against it. But I'd prefer something younger, or at least controlled that could help us later on as well or could be re-flipped later like we did with Greinke, not just a 2 month rental.

[Warning Track Power]

We'd have the option of trading away a good OF prospect to help make the team better, as we have a pending logjam there, but otherwise I wouldn't want to trade away much in order to increase the odds for 2017. Brinson for a similarly talented young SP with lots of team control might be okay, but Brinson for a veteran SP at the end of his contract would not be okay.

 

Totally agree with you here Monty. For example, if the White Sox called the Brewers right now and said we'll give you Giolito and Kopech for Brinson and Diaz, I would do it in a heartbeat. The presence of Santana, Broxton, Phillips, Ray, Clark in the OF and Villar, Arcia, Dubon in the middle IF make dealing of prospect for prospect all the more intriguing.

[CheeseheadInQC]

I guess it depends on how different players are doing, but I'd be more willing to use some of the minor league guys to increase the team's upside, but not necessarily by trading them. Let's say that they are contending because their pitching has been surprisingly decent. Maybe Davies 3.50 ERA, Nelson and Peralta bounce back to 3.70, Guerra doesn't regress as much as feared and ends up in the 3s somewhere and Garza is posting a 4.10. I'd look to deal Garza to open up a spot for Hader. Increase the risk, but increase the upside. If there is a weak spot in the bullpen, move Jungmann or Lopez to the pen and call them up.

 

I don't want them trading off significant prospects for short-term gains when there are questions about whether the winning is sustainable, but holding a fire sale while contending would be kind of demoralizing, and unless the return was great, I'm not sure it would be worth the lost momentum even in the long term.

[3and2Fastball]

I'd go for it, with a modified version of #1. I'd be a buyer at the deadline but would not sacrifice every great prospect we have for one year rentals. At the same time the depth in the Brewers system allows you to give up some players to push into the playoffs.

[And That]

Depends what the 50-40 consists of - is it a strong 50 wins (starting pitching improvement, across the board offensive contributions), or has the club had quite a bit of luck to get there (i.e., they've been outscored by fair margin, or run scoring does not match predicted team output based on underlying stats, etc.).

 

I doubt the Brewers would be categorically opposed to trading prospect depth to help the situation at the MLB level, nor should they be. For all of the depth the Brewers have, they won't be able to keep all of it and at some point decisions will need to be made on which players the organization is willing to part with. I think this coming season is a little early to start making those decisions, but I don't think it's unreasonably early. It also depends on what they're getting back. If it's an MLB they can control for a few years, it might be worth a prospect or two whom they would consider redundant.

[jerichoholicninja]

Stay the course. Anything else is foolish.

[reillymcshane]

Never convince yourself that you are one guy (or two or whatever) away from being a contender. It makes a team make moves like give Zack Greinke $34+M annually, and unload the farm for Shelby Miller.

 

Stay the course is the smart move. If you're 50-40 - the course is pretty solid and trust in what you have built.

 

All that said, I don't see a problem making a move if it's not draining too much talent. Ryan Cordell? Sure, I'm comfortable giving away him. But if it's Hader, Brinson and more for Quintana or whomever - then no.

 

Stay the course.

 

Also, one area the Brewers can make a move without compromising their farm system is by adding salary - which we have the luxury of doing right now. I'm not saying Zack Grienke level salary, but at times you have teams with a guy with one or two years left on his contract, and a club is happy to unload him for little or nothing as long as you take the contract (or a part of it).

 

Maintaining financial flexibility should be a key component of the team's strategy to become a winner.

 

I also think that teams get obsessed with big moves and forget about the little ones. One example of a good, under the trade move, was Milwaukee made acquiring Jerry Hairston Jr back in 2011. His versatility was really welcome - and he saved the 3B position from the black hole that was Casey McGehee.

[brewcrewdue80]

Well, depends on how the unexpected has transpired.

In the event that all of the position players have contributed success, meaning you can count on Broxton, Santana, Arcia, Villar, Shaw, Thames and of course Braun...plus a catcher has emerged steadily.,

 

Then yes I'd consider a trade for Jose Q. But that would have to be it, finding a player with at least 2more years beyond 2017.

 

I'm talking the offense is explosive and its the #4s of pitching being the reason we're Just! 50-40. Removing a 4+ERA and solidifying with a 3 only ERA makes it worth it. Beyond just a rental.

 

I feel like this could become true. Offensively, aside from Braun, every single bat could improve by 10% or more on expectations. Defensively, you know will be better than last...I dunno what runs saved total will be and how many wins that supposedly adds alone. Interesting if you had a projection the w/l differential by what takes the field the majority of time in '17 vs what was on the field in '16. Say its 24runs. Does that mean it would be 6wins via that Pythagorean equation?

 

But say still we are 1pitcher off. Nelson,Peralta, Garza theres 1 of them to move on and find a solid option. Brinson, as studly as he's looking to become, is soundly behind the 3 starting OFs. Trading him to get this SP we need. Just do it. Theres an abundance of CF prospects in our system, and we're talking Broxton is 2nd half+ performing in this what if.

[MrTPlush]

Umm, well depends a lot of how you got to 50-40. If it is the All Star break Brinson/Hader are on the team. If they are making dreams come to fruition it is a mix of #1 and #3. I am not going all in, but I would definitely be trying low profile moves to bolster a hole/bullpen.

 

At 50-40 it is a no brainer to try and compete to some extent. No way you are trading away any meaningful player especially if they are controllable. At that record you are probably holding a postseason spot. No management is trading away contributors while holding a postseason spot.

 

Now if we are like 45-45 then I probably do little to nothing and if we have any players who are FAs after the season I would trade them if I get a good deal.

[MadThinker88]

Let's put it this way.... On , I take option <_ _>

Monday #2

Tuesday #2

Weds. #2

Thursday #2

Friday #2

Sat. #2

Sunday, I consider #3 and take #2 in the morning and again #2 in the afternoon.

 

STAY THE COURSE. Complete the rebuild. There are no shortcuts!

[DHonks]

You can deal from positions of depth (CF) to acquire the starter to get you over the hump

[MrTPlush]

There are no shortcuts, but there is also no timeline. How can you say they aren't ready? If young guys come up and show their potential this team will be ready pretty fast. Doesn't need to take 3+ more years.

 

That being said I would be shocked if they were 50-40. But if they were time to maybe think the rebuilding phase could be done. COULD...

[FVBrewerFan]

There are no shortcuts, but there is also no timeline.

 

Great point. But even at 50-40 I would not trust the rotation to be anywhere near good enough to finish the year strong and make a splash in the playoffs. I would much rather trade a starter if a team comes calling with a great offer for a Guerra or Peralta for example.

 

You know, we talk about trading a CF, Cordell, etc. due to depth. I get that. But I rather give all these guys more time so the cream rises to the top. If there's a 5% chance they go 50-40, there's also a chance Cordell develops into one of the best OFs they have. I don't want to trade him for a BP arm in some sort of fantasy of being a true contender this year.

 

This is all about creating a window of 4-6 years where they can be a legit contender. And to do that they need to retain all the top young talent they have, because you simply don't know who will shine at the MLB level. We all have fun reading and creating prospect lists, but that's all educated guessing.

 

I'm very optimistic the position players may be ahead of schedule in the rebuild. But 50-40 or not, I can't see this rotation competing for anything- not even a 5% chance. Until you can show me a really solid 1-3 at the top of the rotation, I'm continuing to sell at the trade deadline.

[sheetskout]

We're not in the place anymore like 2008 where we need the playoff appearance simply because we hadn't seen one for 26 years. We need to take the next step and build for sustained success.

[paul253]

Option 1 is what got us into this mess to begin with. Not necessarily trading for half season guys but believing you are better than you really are. It's why we signed Garza rather than giving Thornburg his much deserved spot in the rotation. It's why we signed Suppan. It's why we've made a lot of dumb moves that cost us a lot of money and got us very little in return. The organization FINALLY made the right decision and stated tearing it down. Don't abandon that due to a half season on unexpected success. Baseball organizations take way too long to build to dump everything for a one game playoff appearance. Whatever we have of value at the deadline that isn't part of the next playoff run (Guerra, Gennett, Braun, anything in the bullpen) should be traded and pitching should be the focus of the return.

[reillymcshane]

If we are 50-40 at the all-star break, I think the big thing is not to 'go for it' but be thrilled that the process set up is working - and recognize that the team is really damned good.

 

50-40 is a 55.6% winning percentage. That translates into 90 wins. That probably doesn't win you a division unless the Cubs go in the tank, but it gets you in the playoffs.

 

You win 90 games with a young roster, good minor league depth, and plenty of financial flexibility, and you are set up to contend for quite a few years. Unloading a boatload of highly rated prospects at that juncture is just immensely short-sighted.

 

It doesn't mean you don't do moves - but you do them on your terms and make them smart moves.

[LouisEly]

If we are 50-40 at the all-star break, I think the big thing is not to 'go for it' but be thrilled that the process set up is working - and recognize that the team is really damned good.

 

50-40 is a 55.6% winning percentage. That translates into 90 wins. That probably doesn't win you a division unless the Cubs go in the tank, but it gets you in the playoffs.

 

You win 90 games with a young roster, good minor league depth, and plenty of financial flexibility, and you are set up to contend for quite a few years. Unloading a boatload of highly rated prospects at that juncture is just immensely short-sighted.

 

It doesn't mean you don't do moves - but you do them on your terms and make them smart moves.

So essentially, option #3.

 

You look to move Garza, maybe Guerra if the return is right and three of Hader/Woodruff/Jungmann/Lopez are looking ready, and consider moving a Cordell or a Jungmann/Lopez if you really need something. But 28 (Nelson/Peralta) is not old for a starting pitcher by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Remember, last year the Cubs youngest starter was 26 and four of the five were over the age of 30. In the last 20 years I think only two teams have won the World Series with a pitching staff with an average age under 28 (the 2003 Marlins were the youngest at 26.1, but they trashed the young arms of Willis and Beckett in the process).