Manny Machado (Part 2)

[Fear The Chorizo]

With regard to the Quintana trade Stearns didn't have the fortitude for - he also didn't have the key prospects the Cubs did to send away in Jimenez and Cease.

 

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/mlb/charlotte-knights/article214934275.html

 

The Cubs overpaid to acquire Quintana - which is saying a ton considering the amount of control left on his contract at the time the Cubs acquired him. If reports of the package the Dodgers are giving up to acquire Machado are true for 2 months, no way do the Brewers top that without including Hiura and one of the young pitchers (Peralta, Burnes, or Woodruff) - which would've been insane.

 

Going after it is one thing, stupidity is another.

[jjfanec]

For the quintana love people do realize in terms of era he would be our 5th starter right now right? And that he also is averaging something like 5 1/3 innings per start. Last year his era with the Cubs was 3.74 although he did average 6 innings a start. People are mad at Stearns for not emptying the farm for that guy?

[Fear The Chorizo]

For the quintana love people do realize in terms of era he would be our 5th starter right now right? And that he also is averaging something like 5 1/3 innings per start. Last year his era with the Cubs was 3.74 although he did average 6 innings a start. People are mad at Stearns for not emptying the farm for that guy?

 

preaching to the choir...along with all the Sonny Gray stuff around this time last year. Both would've been organizational train wrecks had the Brewers traded what it would've taken to acquire them last season.

 

From a starting pitching standpoint, there doesn't seem to be the same level of helium around any controllable starters getting dealt this season - I'm sure there eventually will be some moves made, but the Machado sweepstakes have been the entire rumor mill for the past few weeks. Part of it has to be the injuries and inconsistent performances of the likely candidates (Archer, Stroman, Hamels), or what would likely be astronomical prospect demands (Degrom).

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

For the quintana love people do realize in terms of era he would be our 5th starter right now right? And that he also is averaging something like 5 1/3 innings per start. Last year his era with the Cubs was 3.74 although he did average 6 innings a start. People are mad at Stearns for not emptying the farm for that guy?

 

I get what you are saying, and I'm glad they did not trade for Quintana. But can we stop with the "emptying the farm" and "gutting the farm" talk? This system is very talented and very deep. A couple big trades, while perhaps depleting some top prospects, isn't going to change that. And that's a credit to the team's scouting and minor league coaching staffs. This system has as much talent in it now as during the Fielder/Weeks/Hardy minor league years, and is likely better, as it has more top level pitching and isn't nearly as top heavy. This system is built to weather making several big trades to improve the big club.

[jjfanec]

For the quintana love people do realize in terms of era he would be our 5th starter right now right? And that he also is averaging something like 5 1/3 innings per start. Last year his era with the Cubs was 3.74 although he did average 6 innings a start. People are mad at Stearns for not emptying the farm for that guy?

 

I get what you are saying, and I'm glad they did not trade for Quintana. But can we stop with the "emptying the farm" and "gutting the farm" talk? This system is very talented and very deep. A couple big trades, while perhaps depleting some top prospects, isn't going to change that. And that's a credit to the team's scouting and minor league coaching staffs. This system has as much talent in it now as during the Fielder/Weeks/Hardy minor league years, and is likely better, as it has more top level pitching and isn't nearly as top heavy. This system is built to weather making several big trades to improve the big club.

 

Yeah I get that and it was hyperbole. At the same time the Brewers would have had to give up a ton to top the Cubs deal.and I don't think that was worth a middle of the rotation guy

[paul253]

I get what you are saying, and I'm glad they did not trade for Quintana. But can we stop with the "emptying the farm" and "gutting the farm" talk

 

I was just gonna say. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn’t mean we are “emptying the farm”. I can’t wven tell you how many times I heard that last year when I advocated for Sonny Gray. The vast majority of prospects fail. A few years ago prospect lovers would have had a heart attack over the thought of trading Jorge Lopez. Now the guy is a throw in....the fourth piece of a trade. I completely understand the need to build from within and not make foolish trades. But not all prospects succeed. And not all prospects have a place on the roster. We can’t just hang on to every single prospect who has had a modicum of success or has an above average tool or two. Building from within is certainly a strategy we need to employ. But so too is cashing in your assets before their value tanks.

[Lathund]

No matter if a team is a one year wonder or built for the long term, you still have to sell out to win. The Cubs sold out for Chapman. The Astros sold out for Verlander. Stearns hasn't proved he has the stones to do it

 

1. Those are very, very different situations. Astros and Cubs were clearly the best teams in their division, already clear playoff teams and WS contenders. That's when you sell out to win. When an extra win or two over the rest of the season (including playoffs) can get you a WS title. You don't sell out when you're the second best team in your division and likely fighting for a WC slot.

 

2. It's not about having "stones" or not, that's an awful take. It doesn't take any stones to make big moves, because that's simply doing the conventional thing, doing what's expected and what the fans want. Going against conventional wisdom is what takes stones. And secondly, how hasn't Stearns proved he has stones? Non-tendering the NL HR champion to sign a guy from Korea? Yelich trade? Biggest FA signing in franchise history in Cain? Saying that Stearns is passive, doesn't have the guts or w/e was around last season as well. It was then, and still is, an awful take.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I get what you are saying, and I'm glad they did not trade for Quintana. But can we stop with the "emptying the farm" and "gutting the farm" talk

 

I was just gonna say. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn’t mean we are “emptying the farm”. I can’t wven tell you how many times I heard that last year when I advocated for Sonny Gray. The vast majority of prospects fail. A few years ago prospect lovers would have had a heart attack over the thought of trading Jorge Lopez. Now the guy is a throw in....the fourth piece of a trade. I completely understand the need to build from within and not make foolish trades. But not all prospects succeed. And not all prospects have a place on the roster. We can’t just hang on to every single prospect who has had a modicum of success or has an above average tool or two. Building from within is certainly a strategy we need to employ. But so too is cashing in your assets before their value tanks.

 

Not to mention the roster crunch that the team is currently facing going into next winter and the Rule 5 Draft. I would hate to lose future potential big league contributors like Gatewood, Kirby and Quentin Torres-Costa for absolutely nothing because there was just too many guys that needed protecting. Stearns needs to clean that up, and I predict it's going to start within the next week.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

No matter if a team is a one year wonder or built for the long term, you still have to sell out to win. The Cubs sold out for Chapman. The Astros sold out for Verlander. Stearns hasn't proved he has the stones to do it

 

1. Those are very, very different situations. Astros and Cubs were clearly the best teams in their division, already clear playoff teams and WS contenders. That's when you sell out to win. When an extra win or two over the rest of the season (including playoffs) can get you a WS title. You don't sell out when you're the second best team in your division and likely fighting for a WC slot.

 

I disagree on your first point. This team was 18 games over .500 a week ago. 18 GAMES! They had a lead on the Cubs. One crappy week of baseball doesn't mean that this team suddenly isn't a contender anymore.

 

I agree on your 2nd point though. Steans has made some huge moves. I think he's spoiled a lot of us into thinking whenever a big name becomes available, the Brewers will be a player.

[82brewcrew82]

I disagree on your first point. This team was 18 games over .500 a week ago. 18 GAMES! They had a lead on the Cubs. One crappy week of baseball doesn't mean that this team suddenly isn't a contender anymore.

That's the thing though. We've seen this play out before, right? If you are truly a WS contender your team should be able to stand on it's own without help. Machado wasn't a NEED move for the Dodgers, he was a luxury, get over the top move. Even if we had gotten Machado I still look at the Cubs and Dodgers as having significantly better rosters to to bottom. Would Machado have made them better, sure, but he didn't make them the favorite for anything.

[Lathund]

I get what you are saying, and I'm glad they did not trade for Quintana. But can we stop with the "emptying the farm" and "gutting the farm" talk

 

I was just gonna say. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn’t mean we are “emptying the farm”. I can’t wven tell you how many times I heard that last year when I advocated for Sonny Gray. The vast majority of prospects fail. A few years ago prospect lovers would have had a heart attack over the thought of trading Jorge Lopez. Now the guy is a throw in....the fourth piece of a trade. I completely understand the need to build from within and not make foolish trades. But not all prospects succeed. And not all prospects have a place on the roster. We can’t just hang on to every single prospect who has had a modicum of success or has an above average tool or two. Building from within is certainly a strategy we need to employ. But so too is cashing in your assets before their value tanks.

 

Not to mention the roster crunch that the team is currently facing going into next winter and the Rule 5 Draft. I would hate to lose future potential big league contributors like Gatewood, Kirby and Quentin Torres-Costa for absolutely nothing because there was just too many guys that needed protecting. Stearns needs to clean that up, and I predict it's going to start within the next week.

 

Related to both posts above; Hyperbole is annoying, agreed. One trade isn't gutting the fam or anything. But the kind of comments directed the other way, like the strawman arguments or exaggerations like how people are prospect huggers for the sake of having a top rated system and the likes are equally dumb.

 

For me it's more about what type of prospect we trade or don't trade. Who we shouldn't trade are the prospects who are either major league ready or very close to it. Most prospects don't make it, but most of that risk is earlier in their careers. Even if you go "all in" now, the "window" is still "open" for 2019 and likely 2020 too. So whether you're looking for the more long-term approach of being steadily competitive Cardinals-style (Or what the A's would have done had they been willing to spend even a little bit to supplment their approach) or lean more towards going for it now, it makes very little sense to trade away players likely to be contributors in that timespan. Hence the unwillingness to move the likes of Burnes, Hiura, Peralta or even some other far along guys in AA.

 

I'm very much in the patient long-term camp, but I'm fine with a trade if it's the right kind of trade. To me that means either some of the Rule 5 casualties (Whether that be fringe guys already protected, or guys we'd be unlikely to protect) or high-ceiling guys further down the minors. If you look at what it took to land JDM, or even useful players like Swarzak and Walker, you can see how it's still possible to get some good returns. Guys like Tristen Lutz have trade value, while at the same time unlikely to contribute to the major league club before 2021 or 2022.

 

So make those trades. Trading Peralta, Burnes or Hiura however makes very little sense, and just creates new holes on the roster that'll need to be filled in the next couple of years. It's not so much that it empties the farm as it removes options. One big trade doesn't deplete the farm. Two big trades don't really either. But they start the ball rolling, forcing more trades to stay competitive. Ending up in a situation where you have to make moves whether they're good value or not. And I think it's too soon for that.

[Lathund]

No matter if a team is a one year wonder or built for the long term, you still have to sell out to win. The Cubs sold out for Chapman. The Astros sold out for Verlander. Stearns hasn't proved he has the stones to do it

 

1. Those are very, very different situations. Astros and Cubs were clearly the best teams in their division, already clear playoff teams and WS contenders. That's when you sell out to win. When an extra win or two over the rest of the season (including playoffs) can get you a WS title. You don't sell out when you're the second best team in your division and likely fighting for a WC slot.

 

I disagree on your first point. This team was 18 games over .500 a week ago. 18 GAMES! They had a lead on the Cubs. One crappy week of baseball doesn't mean that this team suddenly isn't a contender anymore.

 

I agree on your 2nd point though. Steans has made some huge moves. I think he's spoiled a lot of us into thinking whenever a big name becomes available, the Brewers will be a player.

 

Had we been 18 games above .500 in the AL Central, I would definitely have been more inclined to think about it differently. But the Cubs have been right behind us the whole time, and have for the last few years been a second half team. People view the Cubs differently. I still view them as quite clearly a better team than the Brewers, and even if you disagree with that it would be hard to argue that they're not at least rougly on the same level. So 2.5 games back to a team that's equally good or better gives at best a 50% chance of winning the division. That's the kind of situation where you look to improve, but not in a way that hurts you going forward by going all in.

 

You'll also notice I didn't say we weren't contenders, those were your words. But all that is besides the point, which was that we're not in the same situation as the 2017 Astros or 2016 Cubs. We may be contenders, but not on the same level they were back then. Or on the level that the 2018 Astros, Yankees or Red Sox are.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Had we been 18 games above .500 in the AL Central, I would definitely have been more inclined to think about it differently. But the Cubs have been right behind us the whole time, and have for the last few years been a second half team. People view the Cubs differently. I still view them as quite clearly a better team than the Brewers, and even if you disagree with that it would be hard to argue that they're not at least rougly on the same level. So 2.5 games back to a team that's equally good or better gives at best a 50% chance of winning the division. That's the kind of situation where you look to improve, but not in a way that hurts you going forward by going all in.

 

You'll also notice I didn't say we weren't contenders, those were your words. But all that is besides the point, which was that we're not in the same situation as the 2017 Astros or 2016 Cubs. We may be contenders, but not on the same level they were back then. Or on the level that the 2018 Astros, Yankees or Red Sox are.

 

That's the jig of this whole thing, though. Yes, I agree that right now, top to bottom, the Cubs are a better team. But it isn't like the Cubs are going anywhere anytime soon. If the Brewers have a 4-5 year window of being a contender, the Cubs are set up at least that long with their core as currently constructed. That's why I think these teams are probably going to be neck-and-neck for the next 4-5 years. And if the Brewers want to get over the hump, they are going to have to pick a season to do it, or have nothing to show for it in the end. Perhaps this isn't the year to do it ... but having a team that is 18 games over .500 pre-All Star break tells me that perhaps this could be a year you want to strike.

 

The issue is there is no 100% right answer here, and that's frustrating.

[82brewcrew82]

Anyone else think it's strange we haven't heard anything new? No, "the Brewers are pivoting to......." type of stuff?

[paul253]

So make those trades. Trading Peralta, Burnes or Hiura however makes very little sense, and just creates new holes on the roster that'll need to be filled in the next couple of years.

 

Hiura maybe but Peralta and even Burnes? Next season for starting pitching option we have: Chacin. Guerra. Davies. Anderson. Nelson. Woodruff. Peralta. Burnes. Suter. Trading away a Peralta or a Woodruff would not create a hole. It was actually ease a logjam a bit, especially if they are traded for a pitcher. Ideally in the next year or two there would be a spot for Peralta, Burnes AND Woodruff but I don’t see that happening. So trading one of them now isn’t the end of the world. Obviously they have to be part of the right deal. I’m glad Burnes wasn’t traded for Machado. But if we’re going for Syndergaard or Degrom heck yeah I’d include two of Peralta Burnes Ortiz or Woodruff.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Anyone else think it's strange we haven't heard anything new? No, "the Brewers are pivoting to......." type of stuff?

 

Not really. Stearns and the Brewers brass keep things incredibly tight. I have no doubt that the tidbits we kept hearing of the Brewers interest/involvement/trade package for Machado was getting leaked on the Orioles end. It wouldn't surprise me to see some info come out today on who the Brewers are looking at.

[82brewcrew82]

That's the jig of this whole thing, though. Yes, I agree that right now, top to bottom, the Cubs are a better team. But it isn't like the Cubs are going anywhere anytime soon. If the Brewers have a 4-5 year window of being a contender, the Cubs are set up at least that long with their core as currently constructed. That's why I think these teams are probably going to be neck-and-neck for the next 4-5 years. And if the Brewers want to get over the hump, they are going to have to pick a season to do it, or have nothing to show for it in the end. Perhaps this isn't the year to do it ... but having a team that is 18 games over .500 pre-All Star break tells me that perhaps this could be a year you want to strike.

 

The issue is there is no 100% right answer here, and that's frustrating.

So if the Cubs are better top to bottom (even with Machado) what are you trying to accomplish? Why not hold off? How would a rotation of Neslon, Anderson, Peralta, Burnes and Woodruff look next year? Maybe they can use Davies/Guerra to improve the pen? Maybe Nottingham can be the answer behind the plate and Hiura will be ready at second/

 

We are a step behind the Cubs but how much more can the Cubs really improve? We have given them everything they could ask for the last two years with significantly more roster holes. I think the Brewers can improve a ton and close that gap. I don't think I buy that the Cubs will be the dominant force for the foreseeable future if the Brewers manage to play this thing right. However, if they start dealing away significant pieces for rentals, they will always be searching for answers at multiple positions and stay one step behind the Cubs.

 

If they had one singular hole, and Machado fit that hole, then I'd have been more for that trade. The context matters. I also think there is a 100% right answer here and I think DS made it.

[JCREW]

Anyone else think it's strange we haven't heard anything new? No, "the Brewers are pivoting to......." type of stuff?

I'm guessing brass spend the better part of the evening crafting a response (both PR and internal) to a certain other issue.

Also, the Machado deal isn't finalized yet.

 

So I don't think it's strange. Highly unfortunate, even sad, but not strange.

[brewmann04]

I agree DS will never let out who he offered for Manny

[Lathund]

So make those trades. Trading Peralta, Burnes or Hiura however makes very little sense, and just creates new holes on the roster that'll need to be filled in the next couple of years.

 

Hiura maybe but Peralta and even Burnes? Next season for starting pitching option we have: Chacin. Guerra. Davies. Anderson. Nelson. Woodruff. Peralta. Burnes. Suter. Trading away a Peralta or a Woodruff would not create a hole. It was actually ease a logjam a bit, especially if they are traded for a pitcher. Ideally in the next year or two there would be a spot for Peralta, Burnes AND Woodruff but I don’t see that happening. So trading one of them now isn’t the end of the world. Obviously they have to be part of the right deal. I’m glad Burnes wasn’t traded for Machado. But if we’re going for Syndergaard or Degrom heck yeah I’d include two of Peralta Burnes Ortiz or Woodruff.

 

I look at more than just 2018 and 2019 though. Having 9 SPs, when I believe 6 of them have minor league options remaining (And at least 3 of them have experience working in relief), isn't a log jam. We've already used 9 starters this year, and at a minimum you'd want 7 competent starters to get through a season.

 

But it's about more than the numbers. You only quoted one sentence of the post, the rest of the paragraph goes into more about the reasoning behind it. As does the previous one. It's not only about this one trade, but what follows it as well. It was about which prospects you trade or don't trade. Current major league contributing prospects with 6 years of cheap control and fairly high ceilings (Like Peralta and Burnes) are not the type of prospects we should be looking at trading if we're looking to contend. Filling two (Or potentially more) rotation spots with good players who cost the league minimum helps set up other moves as well, whether that be free agents or taking on salaries in trades.

[jjfanec]

So make those trades. Trading Peralta, Burnes or Hiura however makes very little sense, and just creates new holes on the roster that'll need to be filled in the next couple of years.

 

Hiura maybe but Peralta and even Burnes? Next season for starting pitching option we have: Chacin. Guerra. Davies. Anderson. Nelson. Woodruff. Peralta. Burnes. Suter. Trading away a Peralta or a Woodruff would not create a hole. It was actually ease a logjam a bit, especially if they are traded for a pitcher. Ideally in the next year or two there would be a spot for Peralta, Burnes AND Woodruff but I don’t see that happening. So trading one of them now isn’t the end of the world. Obviously they have to be part of the right deal. I’m glad Burnes wasn’t traded for Machado. But if we’re going for Syndergaard or Degrom heck yeah I’d include two of Peralta Burnes Ortiz or Woodruff.

 

I think it could be argued that you can trade those guys this off season for a guy who isn't a rental like Machado. Does this team lose a single free agent? I would guess Davies becomes expendable in a trade if the team wants to go younger.

[jjfanec]

Also to the person who said the Cubs have a 4-5 year window I would ask who will be pitching there even in a couple years? Their staff is old and honestly not performing all that well. Their farm is super bare. They are going to have to go out and buy some starters the next couple years.

[JohnBriggs12]

So make those trades. Trading Peralta, Burnes or Hiura however makes very little sense, and just creates new holes on the roster that'll need to be filled in the next couple of years.

 

Hiura maybe but Peralta and even Burnes? Next season for starting pitching option we have: Chacin. Guerra. Davies. Anderson. Nelson. Woodruff. Peralta. Burnes. Suter. Trading away a Peralta or a Woodruff would not create a hole. It was actually ease a logjam a bit, especially if they are traded for a pitcher. Ideally in the next year or two there would be a spot for Peralta, Burnes AND Woodruff but I don’t see that happening. So trading one of them now isn’t the end of the world. Obviously they have to be part of the right deal. I’m glad Burnes wasn’t traded for Machado. But if we’re going for Syndergaard or Degrom heck yeah I’d include two of Peralta Burnes Ortiz or Woodruff.

 

I look at more than just 2018 and 2019 though. Having 9 SPs, when I believe 6 of them have minor league options remaining (And at least 3 of them have experience working in relief), isn't a log jam. We've already used 9 starters this year, and at a minimum you'd want 7 competent starters to get through a season.

 

But it's about more than the numbers. You only quoted one sentence of the post, the rest of the paragraph goes into more about the reasoning behind it. As does the previous one. It's not only about this one trade, but what follows it as well. It was about which prospects you trade or don't trade. Current major league contributing prospects with 6 years of cheap control and fairly high ceilings (Like Peralta and Burnes) are not the type of prospects we should be looking at trading if we're looking to contend. Filling two (Or potentially more) rotation spots with good players who cost the league minimum helps set up other moves as well, whether that be free agents or taking on salaries in trades.

 

All good points, however the real world of baseball today is that the real contenders use their assets to build a powerhouse for the final couple months and into the postseason and worry about future years later. The Brewers can be competitive for a number of years by holding on to prospects, and making some good moves in the winter, but to cross into championship contention category, they have to be willing to part with unproven talent and boost their roster for August through October.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

So make those trades. Trading Peralta, Burnes or Hiura however makes very little sense, and just creates new holes on the roster that'll need to be filled in the next couple of years.

 

Hiura maybe but Peralta and even Burnes? Next season for starting pitching option we have: Chacin. Guerra. Davies. Anderson. Nelson. Woodruff. Peralta. Burnes. Suter. Trading away a Peralta or a Woodruff would not create a hole. It was actually ease a logjam a bit, especially if they are traded for a pitcher. Ideally in the next year or two there would be a spot for Peralta, Burnes AND Woodruff but I don’t see that happening. So trading one of them now isn’t the end of the world. Obviously they have to be part of the right deal. I’m glad Burnes wasn’t traded for Machado. But if we’re going for Syndergaard or Degrom heck yeah I’d include two of Peralta Burnes Ortiz or Woodruff.

 

I think it could be argued that you can trade those guys this off season for a guy who isn't a rental like Machado. Does this team lose a single free agent? I would guess Davies becomes expendable in a trade if the team wants to go younger.

 

Wow, if 25 is old (Davies), I'm downright ancient.

 

Not only does the team have guys like Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff and Houser that are immediately knocking on the rotation door, there are guys such as Zach Brown and Kodi Medeiros that are likely to be knocking on that same door by September or early next season. I agree that some of that depth could and probably should be used to firm up other roster/system holes.

[pacopete4]

To me, emptying the farm would have been the correct phrase if we had to give up two top end prospects in Burnes, Hiura, Peralta, Woodruff for a guy that won’t be a Brewer come October/November. You would be depleting top end talent, something we really lack for no gain come next season. It just doesn’t make any sense and never will no matter how many times this is hashed out. Glad this fiasco is almost over, that’s for sure.

 

Oh and this 40 man roster “crunch” definitely can be sorted out in a much more efficient manner than a rental.