Brewers prepared to buy, doing background work on Gray and Quintana

[paul253]

People need to understand that it wasn't either "win now" or "continue the rebuild". We had enough young major league talent and enough prospects to do both. We had a surplus of quality outfielders and a decent number of starting pitching prospects. Trade one quality player from each position (I was ok with Phillips and Hader headlining a package for Gray, for instance) and we could get a big name player while still having plenty of minor league talent to build around.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

People need to understand that it wasn't either "win now" or "continue the rebuild". We had enough young major league talent and enough prospects to do both. We had a surplus of quality outfielders and a decent number of starting pitching prospects. Trade one quality player from each position (I was ok with Phillips and Hader headlining a package for Gray, for instance) and we could get a big name player while still having plenty of minor league talent to build around.

 

It can be argued quite well that Hader has been the MVP of this team for the last two months. Without him, with the anemic offense they are showing, they aren't sniffing playoff baseball. I don't know if Gray would have had that type of impact.

[paul253]

That's true but that's not really my point. It seems like a lot of people want to make this is either a "win now" or "build around the prospects". I'm saying it could have been both. We have both major league talent and high end prospects. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn't mean we're giving up from 2018-2021

[adambr2]

That's true but that's not really my point. It seems like a lot of people want to make this is either a "win now" or "build around the prospects". I'm saying it could have been both. We have both major league talent and high end prospects. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn't mean we're giving up from 2018-2021

 

Yes, but that was not really the approach used in 2008-11. It was pretty much 'win now.'

 

Our farm system was in shambles for several years after the Greinke trade.

[KeithStone53151]

That's true but that's not really my point. It seems like a lot of people want to make this is either a "win now" or "build around the prospects". I'm saying it could have been both. We have both major league talent and high end prospects. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn't mean we're giving up from 2018-2021

 

There is a time and place for acquiring name talent to put you over the edge. Gray might have put us over the edge to a wildcard berth, maybe. We also likely don't get nearly the same look as we have at Woodruff, who has put up fairly similar numbers to Gray since the trade BTW. We are much better off as a franchise holding our chips for the most part and waiting until the core is more ready to compete. In addition, it's absolutely possible that all of Burnes/Woodruff/Hader end up being more valuable rotation pieces than Gray in the near future. 2 of those 3 are already looking better than Gray, and I'm sure we'll get a look at Burnes next year. Putting Gray into a spot blocks at least one of those guys from a look at the MLB level.

[Lathund]

You'll still get a ton of fans who don't understand how to build a successful, winning franchise who would want to trade prospects for big name talent any chance we get

 

You make it seem so easy. You just have to acquire a whole bunch of talented minor leaguers and then that will always automatically turn into a successful winning franchise.

 

The problem is that's what we did in the late 2000s. We had two possible future Hall of Famers in the middle of our lineup plus three or four very good secondary pieces for a number of years. What did we win? One wild card birth and one division title three years later. And why did we even win that? Becuase we traded minor leaguers for big name talent. Without CC we don't make the playoffs in 08. Without Greinke and maybe even Marcum we don't make the playoffs in 11. I understand your love for prospects and I agree that a franchise like Milwaukee has to build from within. But there is absolutely a place for big name talent. Prospects fail like.....all the time. We cannot solely rely on our prospects and expect to win year in and year out. Gray was there for the having and we balked. It's understandable but now because of a series of unfortunate events not only are we unlikely to make the playoffs this season but we have a big hole to fill in our 2018 rotation.

 

I was moreso referring to casual fans and not BF posters, to be clear. And it absolutely isn't easy, but this franchise currently has more and better assets than the 2008 team did. Sure we don't have any superstar young position players like a braun or fielder, but we are in so much better shape on the pitching side that it more than makes up for it. And we have young talent all the way down our system. The Gray type moves are for those that subscribe to the window theory. I would much rather try to build like the cardinals model than try a window theory like Melvin in the late 2000's and Theo does consistently. The Cardinals are competitive every year, and have gotten hot at the right time to win it all more than once. I can't remember them ever shelling out a ton of big time prospects at the deadline either. They primarily build from within and trust their guys. Over the last couple years they've moved away from that a bit to be honest(Peralta, Fowler, Holliday signings), but their model is what I'm hoping Stearns can achieve.

 

Agree 100% about not committing to the rebuild-win now cycle, but looking to do more what the Cardinals are doing.

 

That's not to say there isn't still room for a Gray or Quintana type move. But now was not the time for it. If I was a Cubs fan I would've been happy with the Quintana deal, despite the cost. He's under control (Through team options) through 2020, and that's when their position player core start becoming free agents and/or are in their last, expensive, years of arbitration. It'll get harder every year for the Cubs to find and afford the pitching to complement their offense, so it's worth a lot of prospects to fill one of those spots with a young(ish) and cheap starter for basically their entire likely competitive window. Eloy Jimenez would be making his debut towards the very end of that window, so what are they really losing out on? So it makes perfect sense for the 2017 Cubs. But would it have for the 2014 Cubs if they had had an unexpectedly good first half of the season? Should they trade their top position player prospect at the time for a TOR starter? I mean that's essentially where we are in our rebuild compared to the Cubs (Although it's hard to compare, since theirs, like the Astros, was full tank mode and ours wasn't).

 

I know it's stating the obvious to some extent, but when trading 3-4 prospects for a Sonny Gray or Jose Quintana what you're doing is gaining 2½-3½ years of guaranteed (Not that anything is ever guaranteed, but you know what I mean) production and giving up 18-24 years of potential production. And obviously, the buyer is going to pay a premium because 1 "certain" WAR right now in the position you choose is clearly worth more than 1 potential WAR down the line from one of those 3-4 prospects. Even if both sides evaluate the players correctly, and make a fair deal, the prospects involved will (On average) produce a lot more than the player going the other way. For that to be worth it there needs to be a tangible benefit to getting that production now and not later. And to me, that wasn't the case right now. Next year at this time, that might be different.

 

Nothing is ever guaranteed with prospects. Many of them won't make it. There's even a chance that none of them will. I'm simply more willing to roll that dice because finding that Sonny Gray from your own system is just so incredibly much more valuable than acquiring him. You get 6 years instead of 2½. You give up nothing (Or far less anyway) to acquire him. You can even, down the line, trade him for that same package you would have given up for him. A club with our budget won't get close to a World Series without developing a core of our own. I'm not saying that trading for Gray or Quintana would deplete our system or ruin our chances going forward or anything. But every short-term trade we make weakens us in the long run. And every short term move increases the need for further short term moves down the line. Those short-term moves are still necessary at times, but need to come at the right time, when the short-term benefit is big and the long-term consequences aren't severe.

 

Anyway, back to the original point: I hope that this rebuild is indeed the start of a Cardinals-style strategy, and not a rebuild/contending cycle. Some cyclicality will always be there; even when building from within you'll have years with more talent and more luck than other years, of course. So it's not all black and white, or two completely separate things. I just want value to pay a bigger role than need in evaluating moves.

 

I hope this didn't get too long or rambling!

[paul253]

We are much better off as a franchise holding our chips for the most part and waiting until the core is more ready to compete

 

We were in first place at the time. How much more competitive do we need to be?

 

 

Burnes/Woodruff/Hader end up being more valuable rotation pieces than Gray in the near future. 2 of those 3 are already looking better than Gray

 

Which 2 exactly? The one who is currently in AA? The one who has yet to make a major league start? Or the one who has all of seven major league starts under his wing and who is starting to come back to Earth after an incredibly hot start? I mean come on. This is ridiculous.

 

Putting Gray into a spot blocks at least one of those guys from a look at the MLB level.

 

Considering Gray would currently be the best starting pitcher on the staff I don't think he'd be blocking anyone. Burnes won't be ready to begin next year anyway. And who knows how well Hader can be as a starter. I'll take the sure thing over the question marks any day of the week. Beside, if Burnes or Hader forces their way into the rotation (I leave a Woodruff out because I assume he's already in) then they'll find a spot for them. and the guy they replace will be a lot less talented than Sonny Gray.

[iKezims]

We are much better off as a franchise holding our chips for the most part and waiting until the core is more ready to compete

 

We were in first place at the time. How much more competitive do we need to be?

 

 

Burnes/Woodruff/Hader end up being more valuable rotation pieces than Gray in the near future. 2 of those 3 are already looking better than Gray

 

Which 2 exactly? The one who is currently in AA? The one who has yet to make a major league start? Or the one who has all of seven major league starts under his wing and who is starting to come back to Earth after an incredibly hot start? I mean come on. This is ridiculous.

 

Putting Gray into a spot blocks at least one of those guys from a look at the MLB level.

 

Considering Gray would currently be the best starting pitcher on the staff I don't think he'd be blocking anyone. Burnes won't be ready to begin next year anyway. And who knows how well Hader can be as a starter. I'll take the sure thing over the question marks any day of the week. Beside, if Burnes or Hader forces their way into the rotation (I leave a Woodruff out because I assume he's already in) then they'll find a spot for them. and the guy they replace will be a lot less talented than Sonny Gray.

 

Don't get me wrong, Sonny Gray is a top of the rotation starter, but I think it is silly to not think the combined value of Hader/Woodruff/Burnes is going to far exceed the value of Gray. His 3.1 WAR is fine but outside the top 40 for starters. It doesn't matter if Hader is a starter or bullpen piece to gauge his value going forward. Sure, Burnes is a bit of a wildcard still, but short-sighted to write him off just because he won't be ready and Woodruff has had some solid starts to his career. His value isn't topped out at his seven starts you know. I don't agree that Gray is a "sure thing" by any means and has battled injuries this year and last.

 

It seems you are incredibly displeased that the Brewers didn't risk the future to make the playoffs this year, but in hindsight losing Nelson and the Cubs hot streak, I think it was the right move to not. I know how tempting it was to see them do well (still in the hunt, mind you) but I don't understand the rush or want to move young prospects that should play a significant role moving forward.

[KeithStone53151]

We are much better off as a franchise holding our chips for the most part and waiting until the core is more ready to compete

 

We were in first place at the time. How much more competitive do we need to be?

 

 

Burnes/Woodruff/Hader end up being more valuable rotation pieces than Gray in the near future. 2 of those 3 are already looking better than Gray

 

Which 2 exactly? The one who is currently in AA? The one who has yet to make a major league start? Or the one who has all of seven major league starts under his wing and who is starting to come back to Earth after an incredibly hot start? I mean come on. This is ridiculous.

 

Putting Gray into a spot blocks at least one of those guys from a look at the MLB level.

 

Considering Gray would currently be the best starting pitcher on the staff I don't think he'd be blocking anyone. Burnes won't be ready to begin next year anyway. And who knows how well Hader can be as a starter. I'll take the sure thing over the question marks any day of the week. Beside, if Burnes or Hader forces their way into the rotation (I leave a Woodruff out because I assume he's already in) then they'll find a spot for them. and the guy they replace will be a lot less talented than Sonny Gray.

 

Take a look at the Nationals roster, the Dodgers roster, the Indians roster, the Red Sox roster, the Astros roster...and then the Brewers roster. We have the talent to compete, but this talent isn't quite at a point of maximizing results in a way that can compete with those teams. I'd rather use the chips to put us over the edge to serious contention versus hoping it's enough to edge out a wildcard berth.

 

Gray at one point was a guy in AA, a guy who hadn't yet made a major league start, and a guy that had only made 7 major league starts. The proven guy will not always be more effective than the young guy with potential. And honestly just watch them pitch, they are young and very talented. It's not like I'm trying to say some A baller has more value than Gray because of his potential. These are guys at or on the fringes of the MLB level.

 

All things equal, the sure thing is better than the question mark. But the question mark in this case is 3 potential question marks that frankly aren't all that questionable, and team control/salary factors in. If these guys work out how most of us hope, those chips can be used to trade for Chapman or Miller(or pick your impact reliever) next year. The salary space can be used on Walker or another bullpen piece. A lot of people, myself included(and clearly Stearns considering we didn't make the move), thought this wasn't the right move for the price.

[monty57]

The reason I thought we could make a deal this season is that we have a lot of overall depth in the system, particularly a lot of high-level outfield depth, and there were some teams trading away pitchers who had multiple years of team control and weren't just rentals.

 

If we could have used Brinson or Phillips, along with a few guys who are good prospects, but are farther down in our system because of all of our depth, we could have improved the MLB team without doing significant harm to the system as a whole. The Cubs upped the offer so that we would have had to include someone who was currently helping our MLB team (Hader), so it made little sense to do the deal. We likely would have done significant harm to our future without a significant net increase to the current MLB team (Quintana or Gray's production minus what we'd lose from Hader and Brinson this year).

 

We did land Swarzak for some of our OF depth, and he has been a big help in our pennant chase without really hurting our future. This was a very shrewd move that seems to go unnoticed by those who believe we did nothing to help our playoff chances this year.

 

I agree with those that say it doesn't have to be "rebuild" or "win now." Every move should be looked at as to how it impacts your franchise now and in the future. Some times it makes sense to extend guys, while sometimes it makes sense to trade a "proven" guy with diminishing team control for youth. Sometimes you trade away prospects and sometimes you trade for prospects. The key is to have a long-term outlook even when the short-term starts looking good. Most plans are thrown out as soon as the media and fans start screaming for short-term deals that can seriously hinder the long-term outlook.

 

The Cubs looked like they could be dominant for a long time, but they've cut themselves off at the knees. They won't be as good next year as they are this year, and it's downhill from there as their core becomes expensive and they won't have any good pre-arby talent to keep the costs down. Meanwhile, the Cardinals will just continue to be at or near the top of the standings because they never sell the farm. I don't want us to be in a continual rebuild, I just ask that we try to model ourselves more like the Cardinals than the Cubs.

[paul253]

Don't get me wrong, Sonny Gray is a top of the rotation starter, but I think it is silly to not think the combined value of Hader/Woodruff/Burnes is going to far exceed the value of Gray.

 

To be clear I would never have offered all three up in a deal for Gray. Not even close. I wouldn't have offered Brinson either. I made that clear the time. My package included one of the "Big 4" pitchers plus Phillips as the headliner.

 

It seems you are incredibly displeased that the Brewers didn't risk the future to make the playoffs this year, but in hindsight losing Nelson and the Cubs hot streak, I think it was the right move to not.

 

I think my stance could have better been described as "I think we are improving our team now without risking the future". Obviously I'm upset the Brewers didn't make the playoffs but I thought we had a real chance to obtain a TOR pitcher without completely gutting our farm system. Had a deal been centered around Hader and Phillips and, for arguments sake, Gatewood and Coulter, we definitely would have taken a hit in the system. But we still would have had plenty of prospects to help cover the losses.

 

Take a look at the Nationals roster, the Dodgers roster, the Indians roster, the Red Sox roster, the Astros roster...and then the Brewers roster

 

Well it's a good thing the games are actually played on the field and not decided by judges who has the more talented rosters. The Brewers went to LA and beat the Dodgers 2 of 3. They did the same to Washington. Talent wise they're not even but clearly they can win. And we all know pitching is key to winning. If we make the playoffs and Gray Anderson and/or Nelson all pitch how they've pitched most of the year we can certainly win a series or two.

 

Gray at one point was a guy in AA, a guy who hadn't yet made a major league start, and a guy that had only made 7 major league starts. The proven guy will not always be more effective than the young guy with potential

 

Yes and now Gray is an established major league starter whereas none of the others are. Jorge Lopez was once in AA pitching very well. How's his value nowadays? Same for Dana Eveland. Ben Hendrickson. Tyler Thornburg. All had awesome AA numbers. How good of major league league starters did they turn into? I get it. These guys have talent and upside and you want to keep them. But it doesn't seem like you're willing to acknowledge that sometimes prospects fail. I suggested trading one pitching prospect to acquire a TOR starter for 2 1/2 years. That I think is a chance we should have taken.

 

All things equal, the sure thing is better than the question mark. But the question mark in this case is 3 potential question marks that frankly aren't all that questionable, and team control/salary factors in

 

Again I never suggested moving all three. Your combining the value of three and comparing it to the value of one is not fair here.

 

And if you are saying a guy who has never pitched above AA isn't still a question mark at the major league level then your obsession with prospects has gotten the better of you. You cannot honestly believe the Corbin Burnes is a sure thing.

[adambr2]

You know what IS a sure thing? How good Josh Hader has been for the pen in the 2nd half. You cannot just assume that removing him from the bullpen equation wouldn't have affected our 2nd half results in greater ways than the opposite effect of having Gray.

 

You also cannot assume that Brett Phillips would have been an acceptable headliner of any deal for Gray.

[paul253]

You know what IS a sure thing? How good Josh Hader has been for the pen in the 2nd half. You cannot just assume that removing him from the bullpen equation wouldn't have affected our 2nd half results in greater ways than the opposite effect of having Gray

 

I'm not denying that. I've never claimed that had we acquired Gray we for sure would have been in the playoffs. And no doubt Hader has been solid out of the bullpen. What I'm questioning is this assumption that all of our prospects are going to pan out and this absurd statement that two of them (I assume he's referring to Woodruff and Hader) are already more valuable than Gray. Hader has shown no ability to be a successful major league starter yet. He very well could and he'll no doubt get a chance but until he actually does I'm not willing to proclaim him a quality starting pitcher. And Woodruff tonight had his third bad outing out of his last four starts. I'm sure fatigue has been a factor but it still goes to show that he has a long way to go to match what Gray has become.

 

You also cannot assume that Brett Phillips would have been an acceptable headliner of any deal for Gray

 

I use Phillips and Hader as examples because it's what I think Oakland would have wanted based on what I was willing to give up. You're right there no guarantee they would have accepted Phillips over Brinson but I'd guess if Hader was involved something could have been worked out.

[superfly]

That's true but that's not really my point. It seems like a lot of people want to make this is either a "win now" or "build around the prospects". I'm saying it could have been both. We have both major league talent and high end prospects. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn't mean we're giving up from 2018-2021

 

There is a time and place for acquiring name talent to put you over the edge. Gray might have put us over the edge to a wildcard berth, maybe. We also likely don't get nearly the same look as we have at Woodruff, who has put up fairly similar numbers to Gray since the trade BTW. We are much better off as a franchise holding our chips for the most part and waiting until the core is more ready to compete. In addition, it's absolutely possible that all of Burnes/Woodruff/Hader end up being more valuable rotation pieces than Gray in the near future. 2 of those 3 are already looking better than Gray, and I'm sure we'll get a look at Burnes next year. Putting Gray into a spot blocks at least one of those guys from a look at the MLB level.

 

I would not have given Hader up for Quintana or Gray, but Woodruff has been a primary cause of this team losing ground at the end of the year in my opinion. Not that it's his fault being so new to the big leagues, ultimately losing Nelson was the death blow. But after his honeymoon period with no "tape" Woodruff has been quite hittable.

 

I'd much rather have centered the rotation around a proven commodity with team control and let Burnes/Woodruff etc battle it out for a position rather than sit here and pray they all pan out. At some point the can will have to stop being kicked down the road and we're going to need to get that Gray type of guy.

[adambr2]

That's true but that's not really my point. It seems like a lot of people want to make this is either a "win now" or "build around the prospects". I'm saying it could have been both. We have both major league talent and high end prospects. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn't mean we're giving up from 2018-2021

 

There is a time and place for acquiring name talent to put you over the edge. Gray might have put us over the edge to a wildcard berth, maybe. We also likely don't get nearly the same look as we have at Woodruff, who has put up fairly similar numbers to Gray since the trade BTW. We are much better off as a franchise holding our chips for the most part and waiting until the core is more ready to compete. In addition, it's absolutely possible that all of Burnes/Woodruff/Hader end up being more valuable rotation pieces than Gray in the near future. 2 of those 3 are already looking better than Gray, and I'm sure we'll get a look at Burnes next year. Putting Gray into a spot blocks at least one of those guys from a look at the MLB level.

 

I would not have given Hader up for Quintana or Gray, but Woodruff has been a primary cause of this team losing ground at the end of the year in my opinion.

 

How so? We were completely shut out in 3 of his starts. Doesn't really matter if you have Wes Obermueller or Clayton Kershaw on the mound if you don't score any runs, you're not going to win. Against the Nationals he went 7 innings and 1 run and we ended up losing, can't really put that one on him either.

 

Only loss you could really attribute to a bad Woodruff start is his last outing prior to yesterday vs. the Cubs. But we did still have chances to win that one too.

[OnTheBlack]

You know what IS a sure thing? How good Josh Hader has been for the pen in the 2nd half. You cannot just assume that removing him from the bullpen equation wouldn't have affected our 2nd half results in greater ways than the opposite effect of having Gray.

 

You also cannot assume that Brett Phillips would have been an acceptable headliner of any deal for Gray.

 

 

Sonny Gray wasn't that good for the Yankees. An FIP of nearly 5, Walks up, HR's up...I see the last page of this thread and he's been mentioned as a TOR pitcher multiple times. I don't think he is. He's a 3 IMO. Maybe he gets us into the playoffs. But I don't think he gets us any further than that. And there was also the argument that because we won 2 of 3 vs the Dodgers(without Kershaw and several others) or the Nats(again, without Harper and others). But in a playoff series?

 

Also Adambr, you're right. I highly doubt that Phillips would have been sufficient as the headliner...it likely would have taken Brinson plus one of our top 3 young pitchers(Woodruff, Hader or Burnes) plus a couple lower level prospects.

 

I was totally against the prospect of trading away any prospects at the time and even happier we didn't blow any prospects when Nelson went down.

 

It was a great season and a ton of fun, but giving up what it would have taken to get Gray to watch the Brewers face the D-backs in a playoff(Grienke) and then the Nats if by some chance we got past them(Scherzer/Strausburg/Gonzalez)...well, that just seems pointless and premature.

[MNBrew]

That's true but that's not really my point. It seems like a lot of people want to make this is either a "win now" or "build around the prospects". I'm saying it could have been both. We have both major league talent and high end prospects. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn't mean we're giving up from 2018-2021

 

Yes, but that was not really the approach used in 2008-11. It was pretty much 'win now.'

 

Our farm system was in shambles for several years after the Greinke trade.

The statement in bold-face is true -- the cupboard was pretty bare -- but it wasn't a causality thing with the Greinke trade (and Marcum trade). The problem was that after those 4 guys & Lawrie were traded, there was pretty much zero A-level talent left in the system. There were plenty of decent parts left, it's turned out, but none that moved the needle much at the time.

 

In the Greinke trade, we gave up Alcides Escobar, Lorenzo Cain, Jake Odorizzi, and Jeremy Jeffress. The first three guys were the biggest losses. First-time Jeffress was raw talent that couldn't stay in the bigs productively with MIL or KC, and was also underwhelming in TOR. So in truth, the net loss there was 3 legit prospects, plus a guy who -- like K-Rod before him -- has only been good when the boomerang (thankfully) keeps bringing him back to MIL.

 

In the Marcum trade, we gave up the most alluring & probably only true blue-chip position prospect we had at the time -- Brett Lawrie -- and initial returns in TOR looked good for him when Marcum was effectively done in MIL due to injury-induced ineffectiveness after a year. However, that guy everyone bemoaned losing didn't play in MLB this year, holds a .261 career BA, .315 OBP, & .734 OPS.

 

Those 5 guys didn't define the Brewers' farm system at the time. They headlined it. But after the headliners left, there was a major drop-off and a legit talent gap compared to most other farms systems.

 

Anyway, back on the topic of possible Gray & Quintana trades, while I was really, really, really hoping they'd pull off something for a major rotation piece, now I'm not disappointed at all because we kept multiple high-talent guys AND stayed in the race 'til the very end without Gray or Quintana. Lacking either of those guys isn't why the Brewers didn't make the playoffs, but rather the Nelson injury, a few crappy bullpen collapses, and -- my biggest concern -- a low-scoring offense that was often ineffective late in games (and especially WAY too K-prone) after a good early-game burst -- and all the worse w/ RISP.

 

I don't disagree with the reported/speculated theory that the Brewers will attempt to acquire a high-end SP this winter. But I'd be very careful about what I'd give up in return if the move were to be via trade.

[JohnBriggs12]

The Brewers still had Khris Davis, Scooter and Nelson in their system after the Greinke trade. That trio was pretty productive in 2017.

[MNBrew]

Right. The system didn't lack talent overall, but most of their significant talent was in the low levels & not glitzy, thus my comment about not moving the needle much at the time. But there were more decent pieces than the outside "talent experts" -- and honestly many, many BF.net posters at the time -- ever gave them credit for.