Speculating about the unseen Battle Brewing between Stearns & Attanasio

[MrTPlush]

Any one have some statistics on Ryan Braun merchandise sales at this point? I am guessing most people already own all the Braun merchandise they can get. Not to mention he is constantly not on the field and it isn't like he is putting up MVP numbers anymore. Ryan Braun is on the decline and that isn't what people want to buy. They want to buy what is new and cool on the team. I am going to highly doubt merchandise and ticket sales would fall by $20mil year if we traded him. We would save money if we traded him.

[tmwiese55]

I'd agree they'd probably financially come out ahead overall by trading him. Depends what value they put on the environment not being so empty and thus a better experience overall for fans. I'd also agree his personal merch is probably insignificant at this point. But just in general with less attendance due to being a worse team comes less concessions and less overall merch, whatever it is that they buy. If they go pure dollars and cents they do what they can to move him, but if they're forced to take back dead weight type contracts to balance (like is often proposed) then maybe you don't come out ahead as much as you would just keeping and having a better team.

[jerichoholicninja]

Houston tried going for it a year before they should have and traded prospects for veterans and missed the playoffs. I think Stearns was still there. Hopefully he learned from that.

[tmwiese55]

Houston tried going for it a year before they should have and traded prospects for veterans and missed the playoffs. I think Stearns was still there. Hopefully he learned from that.

 

Yup, I bet he did. There's a difference between just riding status quo and trading to go for it. That kind of middle ground is where I think that's the route they go in this situation. First, there's probably not a deal there fro Braun. Second, even if Garza maintains being solid. you're still probably not getting anything of major significance for him. So if they're still winning, kind of shrug your shoulders and say F it, if they can pull it out and make it great. If not, so be it. All the remaining guys are young/controllable so no rush to trade now.

 

ETA: I don't recall the exact Houston results that year so I might have misunderstood Jericho. But same thoughts remain regarding MKE right now.

[FVBrewerFan]

Agreed, forget Braun and Garza for the moment. What if they're "in it" come July and get a really good offer for Knebel, Broxton, or Thames? That's when it gets interesting.

[Thurston Fluff]

If the Brewers are in the thick of the wildcard at the end of July, and we were to trade Braun for a proven reliever, plus get a prospect or two for down the road, and bring up Brinson, I don't think ticket sales are going to drop an iota.

 

I get rebuilding, but I don't get wasting opportunities when they present themselves. If the Brewers are fringe wildcard contenders in July, then I could probably get behind a trade like this one. However, if they somehow found themselves in 1st place by 4 or 5 games, as a fan I would expect them to trade some of those future pieces to get proven talent and solidify their position for a post season run this year. If the point of rebuilding is to possibly be in contention at some point down the road, why would you waste the opportunity when you know you are in contention now?

 

I think there are many that want to believe that there is some magical rebuild formula that will allow the Brewers to contend for 4, 5, 6+ years. Remember not that long ago when the Brewers had all that home grown talent on the roster? They already had a one time #5 BA prospect in Ben Sheets on the team, then they added a #8 and #11 in Weeks and Fielder along with a #16 in Gallardo. They had other highly touted prospects like Hart and Hardy join the MLB team around the same time. Seemed like it was going to be a golden age with possibilities of contending for several years in a row. In reality the success was a sporadic (2 playoff appearances), Fielder eventually became not affordable (and not really a good fit in the NL), Weeks never really fully lived up to his prospect status and had injury issues, same with Gallardo. Sheets became injury prone. Hart fizzled out.

 

In reality, I'm not counting on the Brewers to be in solid contention in July. However, if they are, I don't understand why you would not ride that success because you are afraid of risking future success that may or may not happen.

 

I think you are misreading the goals. Judging from Stearns and Attanasio's comments the point is to be contenders for a long period of time, not just at some point down the road. That requires a different mindset than going all in every time the team does well the first half of a season. All the latter does is lead to a season or two of competitive baseball surrounded by years of being uncompetitive. I for one, would rather stay the course and have more than one or two bites at the apple before it disappears. I think Milwaukee can be more than a small market team who can compete once every ten years or so. The fans have shown they will come out in large numbers and the TV contracts are going to follow suit if the networks think the team is going to be good for the length of the deal instead of two out of every 10 years or so. If the team manages to compete year in and year out like the Cards do, the money will follow. When that happens, the job of maintaining success gets easier. If we spend too much of our future assets going all in on any given season then we stay in the cycle we are in now. That won't grow the franchise from where it is today.

[tmwiese55]

Agreed, forget Braun and Garza for the moment. What if they're "in it" come July and get a really good offer for Knebel, Broxton, or Thames? That's when it gets interesting.

 

Agreed. Might think people wouldn't really be calling them for moves like that if they're 'in it' but yea that would be interesting.

 

Thinking about Thames and Broxton specifically is kind of interesting in itself. Can see the argument to trade Thames since he's older, can move Shaw to 1B and play Perez at 3B and probably not lose tooo much, assuming Thames levels off as a good solid hitter rather than the monster he's been. If Brinson is still doing well there's a good chance you could flip Broxton and again not lose tooo much, it's risky but you might even come out ahead. If there is a guy of ours that I still think might be a fluke it's Broxton due to the massive cold spells we've seen, and I read some article a few days ago about some of his advanced stats making this hot streak seem fluky. So could be a good guy to sell high on.

 

Let's just say if they continue playing well and winning it's a very good thing overall for the team and I really can't see them making any big home run swing go for it trades, they see the big picture.

[homer]

Houston tried going for it a year before they should have and traded prospects for veterans and missed the playoffs. I think Stearns was still there. Hopefully he learned from that.

 

Are you talking about 2015? They made the playoffs in 2015 after trading for Gomez and Fiers.

[danzig6767]

Agreed, forget Braun and Garza for the moment. What if they're "in it" come July and get a really good offer for Knebel, Broxton, or Thames? That's when it gets interesting.

The thing is, if hypothetically Broxton or Thames were traded, they wouldn't have to be moved for young prospects.

 

Given Brinson could be brought up to replace Broxton and in regards to Thames, either Aguliar could play first or Shaw could be moved there with Perez in at thirdbase, a trade involving either guy could be for say a pitcher in AAA ready to pitch now.

 

That's the nice thing about the organizational depth which the team finally has, it would allow Stearns a variety of different avenues and options to choose from in regards to talking trades with other teams.

[Oxy]

Houston tried going for it a year before they should have and traded prospects for veterans and missed the playoffs. I think Stearns was still there. Hopefully he learned from that.

 

Are you talking about 2015? They made the playoffs in 2015 after trading for Gomez and Fiers.

 

I'm guessing jericho was joking? Since clearly, Houston mortgaged their future with that trade. What are they, 30-15 right now?

 

Perhaps Stearns will trade Santana, Phillips, Hader and Houser this summer. Hopefully we are 30-15 at this point in 2019.

[rickh150]

Why can't we be buyers and not mortgage the future? If we are above .500 at the deadline and if have surplus of decent minor league OF that will not all be protected in 40 man this winter, trading one for a reliever/starter makes sense.

[FVBrewerFan]

Why can't we be buyers and not mortgage the future? If we are above .500 at the deadline and if have surplus of decent minor league OF that will not all be protected in 40 man this winter, trading one for a reliever/starter makes sense.

 

Any OF worth anything is either protected already or won't need to be next year. But I'm open to a trade as long as it's not for a rental. Any pitcher would need to have a few years of control. If they make a Sabathia or Greinke type deal, I will rip up my David Stearns Fan Club membership card.

[Ennder]

We could target a Quintana or Cole type and it wouldn't be the end of the world. Those guys are around 2 or 3 more years. They would also require a very strong package to get. I would only do it if we were sitting in the wild card spot at the trade deadline, not if we were a few games back.

[JohnBriggs12]

“The plan is to consistently win major league games over a period of years,” he said. “If that process begins a little bit sooner than people expected, that’s great. And we’ll react accordingly. But it doesn’t change our strategy; it doesn’t change our plan.”

 

Could we read into this being that they may make a move for this years team? The rest of it reads like many want with a complete rebuild no matter what but I found this comment interesting.

 

It's pretty clear to me what he's saying. Let me translate:. If we are in position to win this year and there are moves that will improve our chances then we will make them but not at the expense of sacrificing any players in our system that we have identified as future parts of our core. I think both the owner and GM are in total agreement with that strategy.

[wildcat2237]

“The plan is to consistently win major league games over a period of years,” he said. “If that process begins a little bit sooner than people expected, that’s great. And we’ll react accordingly. But it doesn’t change our strategy; it doesn’t change our plan.”

 

Could we read into this being that they may make a move for this years team? The rest of it reads like many want with a complete rebuild no matter what but I found this comment interesting.

 

It's pretty clear to me what he's saying. Let me translate:. If we are in position to win this year and there are moves that will improve our chances then we will make them but not at the expense of sacrificing any players in our system that we have identified as future parts of our core. I think both the owner and GM are in total agreement with that strategy.

 

I agree 100%. Seems that Stearns is saying that if he can make minor moves that do not destory the farm he will. However, he is not going to abort the rebuild or sacrifice the farm for one shot in 2017.

[FVBrewerFan]

I agree 97%. 3% consists of the possibility that Stearns comments were "GM speak" that really doesn't mean anything at all.

[JohnBriggs12]

“The plan is to consistently win major league games over a period of years,” he said. “If that process begins a little bit sooner than people expected, that’s great. And we’ll react accordingly. But it doesn’t change our strategy; it doesn’t change our plan.”

 

Could we read into this being that they may make a move for this years team? The rest of it reads like many want with a complete rebuild no matter what but I found this comment interesting.

 

It's pretty clear to me what he's saying. Let me translate:. If we are in position to win this year and there are moves that will improve our chances then we will make them but not at the expense of sacrificing any players in our system that we have identified as future parts of our core. I think both the owner and GM are in total agreement with that strategy.

 

I agree 100%. Seems that Stearns is saying that if he can make minor moves that do not destory the farm he will. However, he is not going to abort the rebuild or sacrifice the farm for one shot in 2017.

 

I'd say they have a list of a dozen or so prospects they won't move regardless. But they don't just have prospects that can be used in deals. They have controllable guys on the major league roster too.

[monty57]

The Brewers have the lowest payroll in the league, about 40 million lower compared to it's peak of over 100 million. Attendance could hypothetically go below 2 million and Attanasio would still make a fortune this year with all of the other revenue streams also factored in besides just attendance.

 

The low payroll allows us the opportunity to take on a player as an upgrade to the MLB team when a non-competitive team is looking to dump some salary in July. We don't really have to give up much, just eat the remaining few months of the contract.

[monty57]

Some of you guys act like Attanasio was this horrible person who destroyed the franchise. What exactly did he do that was so darn bad? He wanted to keep trying to compete after a few years of success. He lobbied for a few pretty minor additions over a couple years. The team competed in 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2014. After an awful start in 2015 he decided to allow a teardown.

 

You guys act like he handed out $200mil contracts, traded all our prospects away, and doomed us for a decade. He delayed the rebuild by a few years, big whoopie. Attanasio gets a lot of flak just for delaying a rebuild a few years seeing if he could etch another postseason appearance into history.

 

Wondering if doomsday is upon us seems a bit extreme in my opinion. Mark Attanasio is a pretty smart man judging by the size of his wallet. I think he understands the rebuild is a good idea. I could understand getting worried once this crop of players starts going on the decline...but jesh.

 

Without going into the long, drawn-out posts I wrote at the time:

 

There didn't appear to be a defined strategy. In what looked to be a futile effort to compete, we used our farm as trade material for MLB upgrades, while never making any moves that would add talent to the farm. At the same time, payroll was normally over budget, mainly being spent on past-their-prime veterans, with few good players at league minimum, so we had to fill the gaping holes in the roster with subpar talent that we could afford, making it hard to be competitive. Overall, it seemed pretty obvious that it wasn't going to end well.

[igor67]

This thread should be locked. The title is the most ridiculous kind of clickbait possible based on nothing more then the original posters caricatures of the two men. Yes this is the internet, no we do not need to behave like that is ok.

[rickh150]

“The plan is to consistently win major league games over a period of years,” he said. “If that process begins a little bit sooner than people expected, that’s great. And we’ll react accordingly. But it doesn’t change our strategy; it doesn’t change our plan.”

 

Could we read into this being that they may make a move for this years team? The rest of it reads like many want with a complete rebuild no matter what but I found this comment interesting.

 

It's pretty clear to me what he's saying. Let me translate:. If we are in position to win this year and there are moves that will improve our chances then we will make them but not at the expense of sacrificing any players in our system that we have identified as future parts of our core. I think both the owner and GM are in total agreement with that strategy.

 

I've written this many times over the last couple of years.... How can a small market team expect to win consistently over a long period of time? It hasn't been done yet! What small market team has been to the playoffs consistently over a five to seven year period, including a WS title? Free agency and high arby prices make it nearly impossible. Like it or not, Stearns will need to take his shot and will need to give up some (not all) of the farm to get us over the edge, whether that means into the playoffs or into a WS with some proven talent to fill gaps.

 

On the flip side, we could accomplish Stearns goal of winning consistently, being better than average, and live in that 80 to 90 win gap for the next 10 years. We would make a playoff series or two, but we could be the MLB version of the Milwaukee Bucks, living in that #8 seed territory or #13 pick of the lottery. Not one wants that.

 

His tough talk is easy now. No pressure to win now. No one expects much from the Brewers this year or next (although it is exciting to be in first place). That will change, however, and he will have to move good, young talent for proven stop gaps to accomplish goals.

[And That]

I speculate that the unseen battle entails Stearns and Attanasio staging bizarrely accurate recreations of Godzilla fight scenes. Stearns is Mothra.

[rickh150]

Why can't we be buyers and not mortgage the future? If we are above .500 at the deadline and if have surplus of decent minor league OF that will not all be protected in 40 man this winter, trading one for a reliever/starter makes sense.

 

Any OF worth anything is either protected already or won't need to be next year. But I'm open to a trade as long as it's not for a rental. Any pitcher would need to have a few years of control. If they make a Sabathia or Greinke type deal, I will rip up my David Stearns Fan Club membership card.

 

If we are stocked well in the OF with good to great prospects, we can't protect all of them. Right now, we have eight on the 40 man: Braun, Broxton, Santana, Franklin, Brinson, Reed, Cordell, and Phillips (nine if we count Perez). With an influx of talent that will need to be protected in the next two years ACROSS THE BOARD, and with several of our players under team control (actually all of these OF under control for the next five years plus), trades plural have to be made. I don't want us getting robbed royally thru Rule 5.

[FVBrewerFan]

Why can't we be buyers and not mortgage the future? If we are above .500 at the deadline and if have surplus of decent minor league OF that will not all be protected in 40 man this winter, trading one for a reliever/starter makes sense.

 

Any OF worth anything is either protected already or won't need to be next year. But I'm open to a trade as long as it's not for a rental. Any pitcher would need to have a few years of control. If they make a Sabathia or Greinke type deal, I will rip up my David Stearns Fan Club membership card.

 

If we are stocked well in the OF with good to great prospects, we can't protect all of them. Right now, we have eight on the 40 man: Braun, Broxton, Santana, Franklin, Brinson, Reed, Cordell, and Phillips (nine if we count Perez). With an influx of talent that will need to be protected in the next two years ACROSS THE BOARD, and with several of our players under team control (actually all of these OF under control for the next five years plus), trades plural have to be made. I don't want us getting robbed royally thru Rule 5.

 

No trades need to be made at the deadline this year to manage the 40 man roster. That shouldn't (and won't) be a factor. Do you know how much junk is on the 40 man? Reed and likely Franklin won't be on the 40 man next year. Garza will be gone. They have Espino, Cravy, Hauser, etc.

 

Now, will they need to move 2-3 OF within the next couple years? Yes.

[pacopete4]

Wait. We can't trade Reed for a top 100 prospect? Man.