2017-05-01: Brewers (Davies) at Cardinals (Wacha) 7:15 PM CDT [Brewers win, 7-5, 10 innings]

[adambr2]

Glad during the rebuild we're picking up average players like Shaw to knock us down the draft boards.

 

What's the problem with Shaw? Should be good for 25-30 HR and serviceable defense at 3rd. Can't have a Braun or Thames at every position. The guy is 27, its not like he couldn't be here for a few years.

 

Difference between #9 and #13 in the draft or whatever difference Shaw makes is relatively meaningless.

[MrTPlush]

If I told you on May 1st we would be over .500 and tied for first place with the Cubs would you be happy? End of story. As bad as some things have been this is way better than I ever could have imagined.

[trwi7]

What's the problem with Shaw?

 

The fact that he's a 27 year old average player with little upside on a rebuilding team and we went out and sought a trade for him? I completely disagree with the way Stearns is handling this rebuild and I don't know if he has Attanasio in his ear telling him not to bottom out but it's like they're afraid to lose 100 games when that would be infinitely better than losing 86.

[superfly]

What's the problem with Shaw?

 

The fact that he's a 27 year old average player with little upside on a rebuilding team and we went out and sought a trade for him? I completely disagree with the way Stearns is handling this rebuild and I don't know if he has Attanasio in his ear telling him not to bottom out but it's like they're afraid to lose 100 games when that would be infinitely better than losing 86.

 

Who cares...enjoy the season. It's not like the #3 pick is any more likely to be a star than the #20 pick. MLB draft is a total crapshoot.

 

You play to win the game, otherwise go cheer for the Padres.

[trwi7]

Who cares...

 

I care.

 

enjoy the season.

 

I'm not going to enjoy a mediocre season.

 

It's not like the #3 pick is any more likely to be a star than the #20 pick. MLB draft is a total crapshoot.

 

The higher you pick, the more choices you have and the more money you have. Spoiler alert: That's a good thing.

 

You play to win the game, otherwise go cheer for the Padres.

 

I'm not playing, so I don't give a crap. 14 extra losses in a season isn't going to destroy me emotionally, so I'd much rather see that.

[MrTPlush]

I think you are vastly overrating the impact of Travis Shaw in the W/L over the next best player(Perez) who is incredibly similar.

[sdcheezhd]

With a three run lead you throw strikes and make them beat you. Solo HRs don't hurt. Nibbling on the corners and walking a couple of guys is the last thing you want to do. Feliz did his job.

 

Exactly.

[wallus]

Glad during the rebuild we're picking up average players like Shaw to knock us down the draft boards.

Just think how many games they would lose if they just forfeited every game! The new efficiency?

[superfly]

It's not like the #3 pick is any more likely to be a star than the #20 pick. MLB draft is a total crapshoot.

 

The higher you pick, the more choices you have and the more money you have. Spoiler alert: That's a good thing.

 

How's that working out for the Twins? Buxton really looks like a perennial all star. Sano and Kepler were international signings. Their other high end picks have flopped. Kansas City drafted high for years/decades before they hit on something. The Yankees/Red Sox/Tigers/etc like to buy talent. There's examples of all different kinds of ways to build a team. If it happens we get a high pick that's great, but IMO i'll take the mid round pick from here and lets see what Harrison, Gatewood, etc do and let's crush it. Giannis wasn't a top pick, Rodgers, etc. You can find talent anywhere.

 

I don't buy you dislike we're 0.5 back of the division lead in May considering what was expected out of this team. Even the most bearish of fans has to have a sliver of happiness. If we don't give up 5 run leads we'd be 3-4 games better too.

[MrTPlush]

I don't buy you dislike we're 0.5 back of the division lead in May considering what was expected out of this team. Even the most bearish of fans has to have a sliver of happiness. If we don't give up 5 run leads we'd be 3-4 games better too.

 

Agreed and I don't buy that 100 losses is better than 86 losses. Anyone who vouches for tanking and piling up losses never thinks what it takes to lose 100 games. That means A LOT of bad things are happening and we are years away from competing. Travis Shaw is not the difference between 86 losses and 100. He is probably not a 2 game difference maker. I would LOVE for this team to end the season very close to the .500 either direction WAAAY more than I would want to see 90+ losses and a good draft pick.

 

Finding three more players for the next competing team>>>>Losing 14 more games for a slight improvement in draft pick.

[trwi7]

Jesus, of course you can find talent everywhere but the higher you pick, the more talent is available to you. You still have to pick it.

 

Hey, that 81-81 team in 2006 was feel good (I guess) story but looking back, wouldn't you rather be a little worse and draft between 7 and 11 where Kershaw, Lincecum and Scherzer went instead of 16th where we took Jeffress?

 

In seasons where we actually don't care about wins and losses as a franchise, like this one and the one last year and maybe even next year. I'd much rather lose a ton than put out a middling team, which it seems like we're trying to do.

 

Hell, it's not even like you can say we're winning on the backs of our prospects and young players. We're winning on the backs of 30 year olds.

 

We're letting young talent get taken in the Rule V over crappy veterans and then getting rid of said veterans while losing the young talent anyways.

 

It's incredibly frustrating.

[adambr2]

What's the problem with Shaw?

 

The fact that he's a 27 year old average player with little upside on a rebuilding team and we went out and sought a trade for him? I completely disagree with the way Stearns is handling this rebuild and I don't know if he has Attanasio in his ear telling him not to bottom out but it's like they're afraid to lose 100 games when that would be infinitely better than losing 86.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say many times but I cannot get behind this mentality at all.

 

No rebuild is created equal, but the goal here is not to lose as many games as possible to get the highest possible draft picks until we can pinpoint when we're ready to contend again. There's a lot more at play. If you're perennially losing 100+ games, you're likely to see fan interest falling, and sometimes it's hard to get it back. That's obviously going to affect revenue, and potentially, free agent interest when we're ready to contend again.

 

They are not afraid to lose 100 games. They went out and sold their all-star centerfielder, their all-star catcher, their top 3 bullpen arms, a good left fielder, their starting shortstop, and they attempted to sell Braun, all in the course of the last two years.

 

Maybe this isn't an 86 loss team. Maybe it's an 80 loss team. That's still not good enough, but it's a lot easier to figure out how far you need to go when you're an 80 loss team versus when you're a 100 loss trainwreck.

 

I also think you're putting too much stock into draft position. Corey Ray was mocked #1 in many mocks last year, and no one would have argued had he gone #1. He went 5. Kyle Lewis, despite the injury, might end up being the best player from that round and he went #11. Unless you have a no-brainer, can't miss #1 like a Bryce Harper, which most drafts don't, it's way too early in the evaluation process to worry about a few draft spots. Obviously, earlier is better, but not at the expense of everything else. There's long-term goals, obviously, but players and managers still have short-term goals to win games, even if championship aspirations aren't realistic. You really set a bad precedent if you're the FO who tosses all that out the window and ignores all short-term goals at the expense of frustrating your players, coaches and fans.

 

I also don't agree with your evaluation of Shaw. He's never going to be a star in this league, but he may be fully capable of being a 30 HR, 2.5-3 WAR player with good defense. That has value, very good value, actually, especially for a cost-controlled player. And if you determine you're further away than you thought, the roster is always fluid, and you can look to trade him later. He's 27. There's absolutely nothing set in stone that says he can't be part of a playoff Brewer team at age 30 in 3 years. He's part of the evaluation process right now. In any event, who is he blocking? Lucas Erceg is not exactly knocking the door down to the MLB club this year.

 

I am stunned that anyone completely disagrees with the way Stearns is handling the rebuild. The rebuild appears to be going about as well as could be expected. This is a young team, 5th youngest before they cut Milone, probably younger now. It's not like they are doing this with a team of aging vets. I think you would even admit Thames was obviously a very smart move. I have no issue with Shaw. He wasn't even the main piece in the deal, and I think they wanted to make sure to cut bait with Thornburg now before more injury issues arose, which appears to have been right on the money. Obviously, Stearns isn't batting 1.000, nor has any GM ever done so, but what isn't he doing that you would like to see him do? I just don't understand. Not every trade made it going to be straight up players for young prospects.

[MrTPlush]

Hey, that 81-81 team in 2006 was feel good (I guess) story but looking back, wouldn't you rather be a little worse and draft between 7 and 11 where Kershaw, Lincecum and Scherzer went instead of 16th where we took Jeffress?

 

In seasons where we actually don't care about wins and losses as a franchise, like this one and the one last year and maybe even next year. I'd much rather lose a ton than put out a middling team, which it seems like we're trying to do.

 

Well to be worse you have to give something up. What if that means Prince Fielder is worth 2 WAR less that year(then translates into future years). Still want the better draft pick?

 

I always care about wins as that typically reflects the production of the team and why wouldn't I want guys like Pina, Villar, Santana, etc, etc, etc performing well causing wins? This team is mostly young controllable guys. Why would I not cheer for Travis Shaw to play well? He is controllable for awhile. Why would I be mad Thames won us a ton of games in April? That seems like a good thing. I hope to heck these guy win a lot of games! And as you mentioned the prospects aren't even here which makes it that much more sweet when we add them.

[superfly]

Jesus, of course you can find talent everywhere but the higher you pick, the more talent is available to you. You still have to pick it.

 

Hey, that 81-81 team in 2006 was feel good (I guess) story but looking back, wouldn't you rather be a little worse and draft between 7 and 11 where Kershaw, Lincecum and Scherzer went instead of 16th where we took Jeffress?

 

Don't forget Hochevar was 1st overall and he amounted to a BP arm, and not even an elite one. I have no idea who Greg Reynolds is (#2), I wouldn't say Brad Lincoln or Brandon Morrow (#4/#5) were world beaters either. 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 were mediocre to total busts too.

 

I don't even trust that Brewer management would have picked Kershaw, Timmy, or Scherzer anyway, nor that they would have developed in our system.

 

Maybe you should experience the Twin Cities for a season where a once proud fan base has ERODED after years of 90+ losses and drafting that hasn't worked out. The Twins are the joke of the town and nobody gives 2 rips, do you really want this in Milwaukee? Because don't fool yourself, it will happen in that small town. The WORST thing you can do to a fan base is create apathy and indifference. I'm all for tearing it down, but we did that already...now it's time to move ahead and start building.

[TGOTJ]

There were a LOT of empty seats in the outfield - I'm kind of shocked; I would have thought the classiest fans in baseball would have made it a sea of red.

[adambr2]

Jesus, of course you can find talent everywhere but the higher you pick, the more talent is available to you. You still have to pick it.

 

Hey, that 81-81 team in 2006 was feel good (I guess) story but looking back, wouldn't you rather be a little worse and draft between 7 and 11 where Kershaw, Lincecum and Scherzer went instead of 16th where we took Jeffress?

 

Don't forget Hochevar was 1st overall and he amounted to a BP arm, and not even an elite one. I have no idea who Greg Reynolds is (#2), I wouldn't say Brad Lincoln or Brandon Morrow (#4/#5) were world beaters either. 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 were mediocre to total busts too.

 

I don't even trust that Brewer management would have picked Kershaw, Timmy, or Scherzer anyway.

 

And it's not even certain that our system would have developed them into the players they became.

 

In 2007 we took Matt Laporta. Madison Bumgarner went 3 picks later. We picked Jungmann right before Jose Hernandez in 2011. Still gotta make the right picks.

 

Look, if it's July 30th and you're 20 games under .500, then by all means tank away and sell, sell, sell. But why would you want to tank your entire 162 game season every year right when it begins before you even know what you have? It's not a good way to build relationships with your players, coaches, and fans, that's for sure.

[AdvantageSchneider]

Todd Fraizer was a more highly rated prospect, but he didn't see playing time in the bigs until he was 26, and he's had a pretty good career. Not saying that shaw will turn out the same, but I think it's a mistake to assume every good player we get has to be up with the big club before they turn 25.

[gregmag]

My first live game of the year, and a fine one it was!

 

Of course you get better talent picking third than picking 20th. People have looked at draft position talent yields. It isn't hard or mysterious.

 

At the same time, the notion that getting Travis Shaw as the second player in a middling trade discredits the rebuild mystifies me. Travis Shaw is close to free talent. Somebody has to play the games. "Building," re- or otherwise, happens gradually. It's very hard to go right from losing 100 games to contending. When you're starting to find young guys who can play, it helps to surround them with competent talent so they don't (a) despair, (b) learn from crappy players how to play like crap, © put too much pressure on themselves, and/or (d) start counting the days til they can leave town. I don't want the worst 3b in baseball (assuming I can even identify him) next to 22 year-old Orlando Arcia. Plus, average regulars have trade value.

 

To put the point another way, planning to be transcendently awful at all costs isn't a proven or particularly logical strategy for success in MLB. Draft leverage isn't nearly what it is in the NBA. Now, if the Brewers actually started using valuable assets to get guys like Shaw before the frontline talent compelled it, I'd be unhappy too. But for half of Tyler Thornburg? IMHO that's sound gradual building.

 

Then again, I reeeeeally like seeing The Most Self-impressed Fans in Baseball get very very sad, so maybe I'm not being rational. Oh well.

[trwi7]

No rebuild is created equal, but the goal here is not to lose as many games as possible to get the highest possible draft picks until we can pinpoint when we're ready to contend again. There's a lot more at play. If you're perennially losing 100+ games, you're likely to see fan interest falling, and sometimes it's hard to get it back. That's obviously going to affect revenue, and potentially, free agent interest when we're ready to contend again.

 

Fan interest sucks already. Going bottom of the barrel on payroll will help mitigate any revenue losses and no free agent is going to say "well, they lost 100 games 4 years ago and didn't even try to win, so they're definitely off my list." For the most part, we shouldn't be going after free agents anyways. The only guys we can afford are the older mid tier guys and they all end up sucking either throughout the entire contract or at the end of it. That should have absolutely no bearing on what we're doing now.

 

They are not afraid to lose 100 games. They went out and sold their all-star centerfielder, their all-star catcher, their top 3 bullpen arms, a good left fielder, their starting shortstop, and they attempted to sell Braun, all in the course of the last two years.

 

Trading Gomez and Lucroy was absolutely the right thing to do. Trading the bullpen arms was absolutely the right thing to do. Once again, the problem I have (with Thornburg) is what we got in return. Why are we looking to get Shaw? Why are we not looking for another prospect? An average 3rd baseman? We need that now? Absolutely have to go out and get it? Why? Explain it to me because I don't understand it at all. Use a reliever to get that extra prospect that a team doesn't want to give up but will help push it over the top. Use it to get a pitching prospect like Bickford. Don't use a reliever to get an average 3B who's already 27.

 

I also think you're putting too much stock into draft position. Corey Ray was mocked #1 in many mocks last year, and no one would have argued had he gone #1. He went 5. Kyle Lewis, despite the injury, might end up being the best player from that round and he went #11. Unless you have a no-brainer, can't miss #1 like a Bryce Harper, which most drafts don't, it's way too early in the evaluation process to worry about a few draft spots. Obviously, earlier is better, but not at the expense of everything else. There's long-term goals, obviously, but players and managers still have short-term goals to win games, even if championship aspirations aren't realistic. You really set a bad precedent if you're the FO who tosses all that out the window and ignores all short-term goals at the expense of frustrating your players, coaches and fans.

 

Draft position is huge in every sport but especially MLB. Not only because the higher you pick the more players you have to choose from but also because of the bonus money. If I can cut a deal with say the 3rd best prospect and give him a couple million less than slot, I can save that money for a guy that falls to my next pick and give him money helping my chances of landing impact talent.

 

Say you're picking 1st and 40th in the draft but save money on your first pick and a 1st round talent drops. Would you rather have the 1st and say 40th best prospects in a draft or the 3rd and say 24th best prospects in the draft? Bonus money is huge in the draft now and it would be foolish to not acknowledge how having more money in the draft helps you manipulate the kind of prospects you can get and it's a lot easier when you have top 5 bonus money (or better) instead of say the 11th most money to spend.

 

I also don't agree with your evaluation of Shaw. He's never going to be a star in this league, but he may be fully capable of being a 30 HR, 2.5-3 WAR player with good defense. That has value, very good value, actually, especially for a cost-controlled player. And if you determine you're further away than you thought, the roster is always fluid, and you can look to trade him later. He's 27. There's absolutely nothing set in stone that says he can't be part of a playoff Brewer team at age 30 in 3 years. He's part of the evaluation process right now. In any event, who is he blocking? Lucas Erceg is not exactly knocking the door down to the MLB club this year.

 

But once again, why is trading for Shaw necessary now? You say the roster is fluid but you need to explain to me why, with a trade chip like Thornburg, when relievers are going for high prices all around the major leagues Stearns just had to get that 27 year old 2.5 WAR 3B for a rebuilding team. It didn't make sense to me at the time and it sure as hell doesn't make any sense now. Shaw is the kind of guy you pick up after your prospects start to establish themselves and you're ready to take a step towards maybe competing for a playoff spot but don't have a player at whatever position you're looking to trade for.

 

I am stunned that anyone completely disagrees with the way Stearns is handling the rebuild. The rebuild appears to be going about as well as could be expected. This is a young team, 5th youngest before they cut Milone, probably younger now. It's not like they are doing this with a team of aging vets.

 

The vast majority of our batting WAR so far has come from Thames, Braun and Pina, all of whom are either 30 or above or will be 30 in about a month. Our top pitcher by far so far has been Anderson who will be 30 in 6 months and if he was healthy, Guerra would likely be one of our top pitchers at 32.

 

So no, this isn't a young team or at least, the guys contributing to the wins aren't young.

 

Maybe I'd feel differently if some of our young players were carrying the team or we had an amazing farm system or at least a farm system that would be the undisputed best in our division but we don't even have that.

[topper09er]

Jesus, of course you can find talent everywhere but the higher you pick, the more talent is available to you. You still have to pick it.

 

Hey, that 81-81 team in 2006 was feel good (I guess) story but looking back, wouldn't you rather be a little worse and draft between 7 and 11 where Kershaw, Lincecum and Scherzer went instead of 16th where we took Jeffress?

 

In seasons where we actually don't care about wins and losses as a franchise, like this one and the one last year and maybe even next year. I'd much rather lose a ton than put out a middling team, which it seems like we're trying to do.

 

Hell, it's not even like you can say we're winning on the backs of our prospects and young players. We're winning on the backs of 30 year olds.

 

We're letting young talent get taken in the Rule V over crappy veterans and then getting rid of said veterans while losing the young talent anyways.

 

It's incredibly frustrating.

 

hindsight makes it all so obvious. Please just tell me which player in the next draft will win 3 Cy Youngs and I will cheer for the Brewers to lose as many as it takes to get to their projected slot.

Jefferess has more career WAR than all of the following picks ahead of him COMBINED from the 2006 draft: #1 pick, #2, #4, #9, #12, #13 and #15. He has 4 total career WAR and that is better than half of the players drafted ahead of him combined.

Also players need to see major league pitching to improve. There is a very short list of players who had their best ever seasons as a rookie. If you recall we made the playoffs by 1 game in 2008, so taking away the development our young players got from the 2005 season probably causes us to miss in 2008.

A player's prime is about ages 27-31 (I think I'm referencing Bill James) so Shaw is more than a "veteran filler", he is an attempt to find a solid starter ready to break out.

Also, no teams are willing to trade hot pitching prospects, at least not for bullpen arms like Thornburg. You act like Stearns had offers for every team's A level ace but instead chose Shaw.

[trwi7]

My point in bringing up Kershaw, Lincecum and Scherzer wasn't to say I knew they were going to be Cy Young winners or anything like that, it was to point out that there was no chance the Brewers could draft them because of where they picked to point out the absurdity of the argument that "you can get talent anywhere in the draft."

[trwi7]

Also, no teams are willing to trade hot pitching prospects, at least not for bullpen arms like Thornburg. You act like Stearns had offers for every team's A level ace but instead chose Shaw.

 

We literally traded Smith, who was injured earlier in the year and having a mediocre year for Bickford like 5 months earlier. You could make the argument that Jeffress got us Ortiz (or at minimum Cordell, who I'm not a huge fan of but is a decent enough prospect.)

 

I'm saying a prospect like Bickford or Ortiz (not necessarily a pitcher) but a prospect of that caliber would make more sense for us to acquire at this time for one of our trade pieces than acquiring Shaw would.

[pacopete4]

I'm baffled.

[adambr2]

Also, no teams are willing to trade hot pitching prospects, at least not for bullpen arms like Thornburg. You act like Stearns had offers for every team's A level ace but instead chose Shaw.

 

We literally traded Smith, who was injured earlier in the year and having a mediocre year for Bickford like 5 months earlier. You could make the argument that Jeffress got us Ortiz (or at minimum Cordell, who I'm not a huge fan of but is a decent enough prospect.)

 

I'm saying a prospect like Bickford or Ortiz (not necessarily a pitcher) but a prospect of that caliber would make more sense for us to acquire at this time for one of our trade pieces than acquiring Shaw would.

 

We have no idea if an offer like that was even on the table. Smith was a lefty traded at the deadline. Thornburg was traded in the off-season after building up some value down the stretch as a closer. And we don't know yet what kind of value Dubon and Pennington will end up having. Dubon is arguably already a more highly rated prospect than Bickford.

[stoutdude04]

Yea, the obsession with Shaw is confusing. I thought Dubon was supposed to be the bees knees?