Optimal Depth

[Greenleaf1]

In response to Santana sitting 2 games in a row and to Counsell's insistence that "depth is a good thing", I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

 

The question is whether or not our current depth is optimal for winning the most ball games. In the event of a major injury at OF/1B, this level of depth is going to be hugely important, but if everyone stays healthy, I think we'd be far better served had we been able to pull off a trade from our excess depth to acquire a #1/#2/#3 type solid starting pitcher.

 

The question remains, however, whether or not that was even possible this offseason, and I would guess it's not, so if that's the case I'm glad we have what we have. You could also go back and ask why we acquired both Cain and Yelich instead of just one of them, but given how great they've looked so far, I'm not sure I even want to entertain arguing against having both of those guys on the team.

 

So where does that leave us? In terms of production on the field this year with this team, we're obviously better off having the extra player than not having the extra player (extra 2 players I guess now if you say we have 6 guys competing for 4 positions on a daily basis, or even 7 if you include Choi now), but this hopefully also puts us in a position to revisit the trade market this summer and see if we can find a good fit for our depth.

 

Anybody else have any ideas/opinions in this general area? I keep talking myself in circles about the way Stearns is approaching this team this year. Having quality depth is so important in a long season, but are we best optimizing our current players/money to field the best team we can? I think these decisions will spill over into the pitching staff, because the moves Stearns didn't make this offseason to upgrade the staff are going to leave some openings for young prospects to prove that they belong and can maybe contribute as much to the team as any veteran signing/trade could. Nelson's return and Corbin Burnes' arrival could very well determine the course this team takes over the next few years. It becomes a lot easier to keep an ungodly amount of outfield depth if by the end of 2018 your rotation is a good Jimmy Nelson, a good Chase Anderson, a good Brandon Woodruff, a good Corbin Burnes, and even an average Jhoulys Chacin. A lot would have to break right there, but that's also not completely out of the realm of possibility and there's more pitching depth near the majors where that came from (don't even get me started on the crazy minor league bullpen depth we could employ this year yet).

 

I've now officially rambled on too long, what do you guys think?

[topper09er]

If it was reversed, we had our current roster without Santana but with a better SP, would be trade that SP for Santana in order to have the added depth we have now? I don't think so. Sure we have Braun who is not an everyday player anymore, but we also have Brett Phillips who could fill in.

[TexasCheesehead]

I think Stearns has something up his sleeve. He's a smart man and waiting on the right opportunity to nab a pitcher from a team that has given up hope on the 2018 season...perhaps for some sort of discount. I'd be shocked if we didn't pull a marque pitcher this year if we keep winning. Personally, I prefer him waiting and not investing $100 million on an uncertainty like Jake Arrieta. Let's be real, the Brewers don't exactly have a great history of signing free agent pitchers (Kyle Lohse, Matt Garza, Jeff Suppan).

[Greenleaf1]

If it was reversed, we had our current roster without Santana but with a better SP, would be trade that SP for Santana in order to have the added depth we have now? I don't think so. Sure we have Braun who is not an everyday player anymore, but we also have Brett Phillips who could fill in.

 

That's sound logic, to be sure, but this also assumes that a starting pitcher of merit was available in a trade for Santana.

 

I also think Stearns is committed to giving the young pitchers their chance this year (Suter, Woodruff, Burnes at least). He's turning Nelson's injury into an opportunity and counting on the fact that with our current level of talent it's unlikely that even if all those guys aren't that great, we still probably will have a chance to turn it around in June/July.

 

Certainly our current roster is not optimal, but it's not like it's that much of a problem either.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think there was probably deals out there for Santana. He has too many tools for the market to be completely cold on him, especially when you see an inferior player in Steven Souza (in my opinion) dealt for a nice return. I think the other team either likely backed out, or Stearns has placed a value on Santana that is higher than the teams that could use him view him at. That happens. You are right, though, that juggling the logjam isn't really doing his value any favors.

[topper09er]

Certainly our current roster is not optimal, but it's not like it's that much of a problem either.

 

It is a problem, we have a perfectly healthy 25 year old who hit 30 HRs last season not in the starting lineup tonight. That is a waste. If Melvin could pull off the Brett Lawrie - Shaun Marcum deal we should have done something like that for Santana. Honestly, if DS thinks Brent Suter can consistently complete in MLB I don't know what to say. Last year, among all 157 pitchers with as many innings as him, his mighty 86.2 mph fastball was the second slowest only behind the 42 year old knuckballer RA Dickey.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=80&type=17&season=2017&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&page=6_30

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Certainly our current roster is not optimal, but it's not like it's that much of a problem either.

 

It is a problem, we have a perfectly healthy 25 year old who hit 30 HRs last season not in the starting lineup tonight. That is a waste. If Melvin could pull off the Brett Lawrie - Shaun Marcum deal we should have done something like that for Santana. Honestly, if DS thinks Brent Suter can consistently complete in MLB I don't know what to say. Last year, among all 157 pitchers with as many innings as him, his mighty 86.2 mph fastball was the second slowest only behind the 42 year old knuckballer RA Dickey.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=80&type=17&season=2017&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&page=6_30

 

You nailed it. I don't believe for a second that there isn't/wasn't a starting pitcher out there that would have upgraded this staff that could have been had for Santana and/or prospects.

[OnaBadger58]

Stearns isn't going to trade a player and not receive what he feels to be a fair return. The rumors were that Keon Broxton was receiving more attention this winter. The logjam of OF isn't ideal right now, but you can't trade away someone to for the sake of trading away someone.

[FVBrewerFan]

Santana's value was lower than Stearns thought, it happens. Kudos to him for not just giving him away.

 

There really is no issue vs LH starter. Braun plays 1B, Santana plays RF. RH starter is trickier, and there's no easy answer. I still think it will work itself out, but in the meantime I would have Santana starting, with Braun the odd man out. Maybe give him a few more starts at 1B against RH.

 

Most importantly, they have Cain/Yelich starting every game. May seem obvious, but I wouldn't have been surprised if they each had a day off by now. I really hope this is the plan, that they start at least 150 games if healthy.

[adambr2]

So far we've been totally healthy and Braun has played 4 out of 5, Thames and Santana 3 out of 5. The next 5 games might be the other way and so they might all be around 7 out of 10. Figure in the DH and occasional days off for Yelich and Cain and you're probably looking at 3/4 playing time for the trio, about 120 starts, which equals about 532 plate appearances in a season.

 

Last season Braun had 425, Thames had 551, and Santana had 607, for an average of 528.

 

I've gone back and forth on this, but I fail to see how the math doesn't work out fine. I know it's frustrating seeing a good bat out of the lineup but it's way too early to judge the playing time after 5 games.

 

In the end, I think the only real difference that we'll see is that when they have injuries, and they will, they'll be replacing them with guys we want to play anyway, and not throwing in guys like Nick Franklin and doing crazy things like starting Jonathan Villar in CF.

[FVBrewerFan]

In the end, I think the only real difference that we'll see is that when they have injuries, and they will, they'll be replacing them with guys we want to play anyway, and not throwing in guys like Nick Franklin and doing crazy things like starting Jonathan Villar Mark Kotsay in CF.

 

Fixed.

[topper09er]

 

RH starter is trickier, and there's no easy answer.

 

Most importantly, they have Cain/Yelich starting every game. May seem obvious, but I wouldn't have been surprised if they each had a day off by now. I really hope this is the plan, that they start at least 150 games if healthy.

 

Last year we faced RH starters in 79% of our games.

 

It better be the plan to play Cain/Yelich 150+ games. Also remember this year there are 4 extra off days baked into the schedule which is why the season started on a Thursday instead of the normal Monday.

[Oxy]

I think this is the optimal depth.

 

I love having big sticks on the bench to pinch hit in key situations. Especially when those bats are getting regular playing time.

[Boomer5]

Stearns plan was to make the top of the line up better and make the starting rotation worse. He succeeded on both counts.

 

And there is a difference between a talented player on the bench and a talented bench player.

[pacopete4]

Stearns plan was to make the top of the line up better and make the starting rotation worse. He succeeded on both counts.

 

And there is a difference between a talented player on the bench and a talented bench player.

 

Come on man. I get that you don’t like the starting rotation but do you really think this is his plan?

[Boomer5]

Stearns plan was to make the top of the line up better and make the starting rotation worse. He succeeded on both counts.

 

And there is a difference between a talented player on the bench and a talented bench player.

 

Come on man. I get that you don’t like the starting rotation but do you really think this is his plan?

 

How do you explain a Chacin, Suter, Woodruff 3-5 with Miley and Junior as our next wave? Seriously no baseball man would put that out there with our excellent (and not young) 1-5 lineup and suggest he did his job.

 

Seriously though, it looks pretty obvious like he had a plan with Santana and he badly miscalculated. Then he did his spin with young pitchers not being blocked blah blah blah. You know the same GM drivel as our goal is to acquire young controllable talent. Like that wasn’t the goal of every GM in history. Lol.

 

Back to the OP, the reason trades existed in the first place is to trade your surplus assets for someone else’s surplus assets to balance the rosters needs.

 

Santana on our bench and Chacin/Suter/Woodruff/Miley on the hill is not a good use of assets. I have a feeling once the team proves 2017 wasn’t a fluke, we will make a big trade for a real SP.

[obobo55new]

Think there are 2 things that play into the rotation not being improved.

 

1) Brewers have a higher value on young controllable talent than other teams. Their "extra" OF, while good, are not necessarily game changers. Santana and Broxton both are serviceable and could still become even better but at this point aren't all-stars putting up .900+ OPS. Could Stearns have dealt them away for something? Sure, but he didn't get offered what he felt was a high enough return for their overall talent/control.

 

2) At this point in MLB, I think teams have decided that only the very very best starters that hit the FA market over 30 are worth giving more than 2 year deals. Too many teams have been burned signing guys to 4-5 yr contracts where they are not good in the last 2 years. That in combination with Miller Park being known as a launching pad, makes it difficult for the Crew to sign the guys that were out there this off-season. From their perspective, why sign in Milwaukee for 1 or 2 years and perhaps struggle? Then you might not get offered a deal when you hit the market again.

 

Quite simply-It takes two to tango. As much as Stearns may have wanted or planned to improve the staff, if an opposing GM or available FA isn't on the same page regarding value, there isn't much he can do.

 

formerly obobo55

[82brewcrew82]

If it was reversed, we had our current roster without Santana but with a better SP, would be trade that SP for Santana in order to have the added depth we have now? I don't think so. Sure we have Braun who is not an everyday player anymore, but we also have Brett Phillips who could fill in.

This is a great post and really puts the whole thing into perspective. In spring training all we heard was that the pitching was better than some of us thought and they would be good enough. That narrative is already changing to "there weren't better options". You can tell me that DS didn't want to pay the price to upgrade the pitching, but you cannot tell me he couldn't have done it if he wanted to. Can we make a deal mid season, sure we can but it's going to take the same pieces we didn't want to give up pre-season (and probably more). That logic is flawed. It isn't my job to figure out how to make the team competitive, that job goes to DS.

 

If you're going to buy a bunch of steaks on sale even though you have enough steak in your freezer, you had better be able to buy the bottle of wine to go with it or what was the point. Instead we get a six pack of high life lite.

[topper09er]

Instead?

[82brewcrew82]

Instead?

Good bottle of wine being the rotation I wish we had, six pack of high life lite being my opinion of what we currently have.

[topper09er]

I get what you meant, I was trying to tell a joke implying that having high life is the superior option. I have failed

[82brewcrew82]

I get what you meant, I was trying to tell a joke implying that having high life is the superior option. I have failed

Jeez, I knew that joke would be coming and I stilled missed it. I think I failed worser than you.

[adambr2]

Stearns plan was to make the top of the line up better and make the starting rotation worse. He succeeded on both counts.

 

And there is a difference between a talented player on the bench and a talented bench player.

 

Come on man. I get that you don’t like the starting rotation but do you really think this is his plan?

 

How do you explain a Chacin, Suter, Woodruff 3-5 with Miley and Junior as our next wave? Seriously no baseball man would put that out there with our excellent (and not young) 1-5 lineup and suggest he did his job.

 

Seriously though, it looks pretty obvious like he had a plan with Santana and he badly miscalculated. Then he did his spin with young pitchers not being blocked blah blah blah. You know the same GM drivel as our goal is to acquire young controllable talent. Like that wasn’t the goal of every GM in history. Lol.

 

Back to the OP, the reason trades existed in the first place is to trade your surplus assets for someone else’s surplus assets to balance the rosters needs.

 

Santana on our bench and Chacin/Suter/Woodruff/Miley on the hill is not a good use of assets. I have a feeling once the team proves 2017 wasn’t a fluke, we will make a big trade for a real SP.

 

Because what you're not mentioning is that Jimmy is coming back in June, and if Burnes keeps doing what he's doing he'll be up around the same time. That's two potentially big additions right there without anything else. Obviously the organization believes in them.

 

Just because this is their rotation now doesn't mean this is the rotation they'll have at the end or even middle of the season.

 

If you think you have a 2 month problem, you don't go handing out 4 and 6 year contracts that you otherwise wouldn't to solve a 2 month problem.

 

And just because trading your surplus assets for other surplus assets to balance roster needs is a great idea in theory, doesn't mean it's always going to work in practice, especially in an off-season when corner OFers are so devalued.

[sveumrules]

Optimal depth for me would be something similar to what the Dodgers or Cubs playing time/plate appearances turned out to be last season when they finished 1/2 in NL position player fWAR.

 

Dodgers had eleven players crack 100 games, ten of which posted 1.3 fWAR or greater. They had five qualifiers (502+ PAs) who all hit a wRC+ of 117 or greater and provided a total of 22.8 fWAR. They got another 9.9 fWAR from their six non qualified 100 gamers who ranged in PAs from 262 to 482.

 

Cubs also had eleven players crack 100 games, nine of which posted 1.2 fWAR or greater. They spread their playing time around a little more evenly with only three qualifiers - Bryant, Rizzo & Baez totaling 12.9 fWAR. Their remaining eight non qualified 100 gamers chipped in a total 11.9 fWAR with PAs ranging from 323 to 496. They even managed another 1.7 fWAR from their 12th-14th spots in PAs.

[Greenleaf1]

These last two posts have really gotten to the point of what it is Stearns is trying to do.

 

Quality depth is key to a playoff calibre team, and the Brewers don't have the money to go out and buy depth like we currently have at some positions, they have to cultivate it and not give it away for peanuts (none of the rumored trade targets this offseason seemed worth giving up Santana in my opinion, unless he was packaged with a lot of prospects).

 

I also think we need to see what this rotation looks like in June/July. I guarantee it will not be the same as it is now. Stearns is making the best of a difficult situation and holding the line as best as he can until our top prospects and Nelson are ready to contribute.

 

So far, even if you want to look at the small sample size, I'm ok with the 4-1 result of having too much offense and not enough starting pitching.