David Stearns Free Pass??

[trwi7]

 

Right, because our current group is as talented as 2006 which included Fielder, Braun, Gallardo, Hart, Escobar and Nelson Cruz in our top 10. Go back to July of 2005 and add Weeks and Hardy to that list. This group might not even be as good as the 2009 group which had Escobar, Gamel, Lawrie, Jeffress, Cain and Lucroy.

 

Besides Jeffress, I see no pitching. I don't deny that the 2006 Top 10 was great. But that system wasn't deep whatsoever.

 

I think you're overestimating how deep even the best systems are. The best maybe go like 15 deep. And even on the list you posted you had Parra and Villanueva who had a few decent years, Cain and Brantley were in the 30s and became all-stars and Gamel and Peralta became top 100 prospects while they were in the late 40s.

[coolhandluke121]

They weren't top heavy at all. There were plenty of prospects of the Burnes/Arcia caliber but they were overshadowed. Also, the Brewers traded a lot of them away and a lot of them didn't pan out, but there's surely a lot of prospects who won't pan out in the current system as well. Calling the current system deep and that system top heavy is a bit like calling the Brewers' current rotation deep and calling last year's Dodgers' starting rotation top heavy. It's not like those Dodgers didn't have plenty of pitching depth too.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

They weren't top heavy at all. There were plenty of prospects of the Burnes/Arcia caliber but they were overshadowed. Also, the Brewers traded a lot of them away and a lot of them didn't pan out, but there's surely a lot of prospects who won't pan out in the current system as well. Calling the current system deep and that system top heavy is a bit like calling the Brewers' current rotation deep and calling last year's Dodgers' starting rotation top heavy. It's not like those Dodgers didn't have plenty of pitching depth too.

 

I totally get what you are saying. I just see things differently. I put a big premium on pitching talent in the minors, and the pitching depth now is lightyears better than it was in 2006. If Hiura is a Braun-level hitting talent, that just helps this system when comparing.

 

I will argue that, when you look at the prospect lists from back then, they most certainly did not have pitching prospects the level of Burnes and Peralta. There is no way Dana Eveland and Ben Hendrickson were even in the same stratosphere as those guys, and is showed when they washed out. Parra had a lot of hype, and Villanueva was decent, but I'd say Villanueva was a Trey Supak level prospect, not a Burnes level.

[coolhandluke121]

There is more pitching now, but the Brewers were still able to get guys like Greinke, Sabathia, and Marcum with their "2nd-tier" position prospects. So if it just comes down to wanting Stearns to make more win-now moves, I don't think it matters whether you're talking about pitching prospects or position players.

 

If anything, the fact that the current farm system is more balanced is all the more reason to stand pat unless you get an opportunity that you can't pass up - like not being real enthusiastic (speculation of course, but very plausible) about your #1 prospect and then being able to trade him for Christian Yelich. Those teams wouldn't have been able to get enough pitching to field a contender without some trades or free agents, but this team could address most of their holes from within if they're just patient.

[Eye Black]

I don’t think the current crop of minor league talent will produce as many above average major leaguers as the mid-2000’s farm system, but I do think we are going to be surprised by how many major leaguer players eventually emerge from the current system.

[sveumrules]

The difference is when the farm was stacked circa 2005-2006 the Major League club was mostly bereft of talent.

 

Now we have a Major League roster that has enough controllable assets that we've been solidly in contention (well ahead of schedule, at that) for the last two seasons plus a farm that is still plenty deep despite only having a couple two tree top end prospects at the moment.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Actually think that early 2000s farm was overrated. It had two mega stars and Corey Hart, who was probably the third best guy, but the rest of it was not that great. JJ was a good player, as was Weeks, but Weeks was wildly inconsistent and a headache to watch.

 

There was diddly in the pitching department. I would agree it was top heavy.

[paul253]

No? Because he might have actually been good. It's too funny you began with "It's easy to say that now." The premise of your argument is that Stearns should have traded him because he should've known he wasn't good.

 

Again, you guys are moving the goal posts. You've decided something about DS and just frame the circumstances to reach your conclusion.

 

 

No, the premise of my argument is that the guy isn’t god and he has made mistakes too. We are allowed to criticize him for mistakes he made. You made it seem so obvious the Santana was some worthless player who had no track record and strikes out all the time. I simply said if that were true then we should have taken anything we should have gotten for him. For what it’s worth I think Santana was more valuable than you do but I also think Stearns was probably expecting too much for him.

[MrTPlush]

Did Santana retire?

 

It seems ridiculously early to call that some kind of mistake. Like....waaaay too early.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Did Santana retire?

 

It seems ridiculously early to call that some kind of mistake. Like....waaaay too early.

 

Well, he's 25. Already past his peak.

[Boomer5]

 

Here’s is part of my issue with the Stearns love and this is no reflection of this poster, just this seemed like a good time to respond.

 

With Stearns, the excuse is he couldn’t be expected to predict Scooter and Segura would become All Stars and he couldn’t predict Santana would fall apart yet he is given all the credit for predicting Aguilar and Shaw would become mashers.

 

I find that selective.

What i think this shows is that there is also luck which factors in for every GM.

 

Sure Stearns and his staff had to like Aguilar enough to grab him off waivers, but even Stearns would admit that he couldn't have predicted getting a .987 OPS season, anymore than the Reds could have envisioned Scooter Gennett turning into Robinson Cano after claiming him off waivers.

 

With Segura at least, there is a concrete explanation. A coach in winter ball the year after we traded him got Segura to significantly alter his batting stance and he hasn't stopped hitting since. Granted, blame could be placed on our coaching staff for not making a similar suggestion to Segura, but Stearns isn't a hitting coach.

 

Sports are both a mix of being predictable and unpredictable. Odd stuff happens though to players around the league. Hell, Beane waives Muncy and suddenly with the Dodgers he's a hitting beast. On the flip side Bryce Harper has a .218 batting average. There are tons more examples.

 

Any GM will do well so long as he makes more good moves than bad overall, but mixed in will inevitably be some players that far exceed what he could have envisioned and others who do much worse than he could have envisioned because it's a volatile sport.

 

Stearns isn’t the hitting coach but that is also why I suggest that he isn’t a true baseball man or talent evaluator.

 

But to your post, Volatile is a great word. It wasn’t long ago that Arcia was hitting 15 HRs, Santana was a beast, Anderson and Nelson formed a true 1-2, and Kneble had the best closer year I’ve seen here.

 

Stearns seems to judged on the small sample size alert. I’d like to see what his 5 year plan looks like when he has had the job for 5 years.

[paul253]

Did Santana retire?

 

It seems ridiculously early to call that some kind of mistake. Like....waaaay too early

 

Fair enough. But you’d be very hard pressed to convince me his value will ever be any higher than it was last off-season. On top of the age thing and the less years of control thing, Santana is now basically the fifth outfielder at best on this team whereas last offseason he was more or less a starter. It’s going very hard to regain value when Cain Yelich Braun and Thames (not to mention Broxton and Phillips who are both on the major league roster now while he is still in AAA) are all getting at bats ahead of him. I obviously don’t know what was offered for him in the offseason but I think it’s a good bet that in the long run it will be viewed as a mistake not trading him when he wasn’t even really needed to begin with.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

No? Because he might have actually been good. It's too funny you began with "It's easy to say that now." The premise of your argument is that Stearns should have traded him because he should've known he wasn't good.

 

Again, you guys are moving the goal posts. You've decided something about DS and just frame the circumstances to reach your conclusion.

 

 

No, the premise of my argument is that the guy isn’t god and he has made mistakes too. We are allowed to criticize him for mistakes he made. You made it seem so obvious the Santana was some worthless player who had no track record and strikes out all the time. I simply said if that were true then we should have taken anything we should have gotten for him. For what it’s worth I think Santana was more valuable than you do but I also think Stearns was probably expecting too much for him.

 

No, that's not what I said. Stearns tried to trade him. Hard. The rest of the league, at least the teams that had a need there, obviously did not like him. Maybe Stearns still did, and didn't want to give him away for nothing. He was trying to trade his depth, but (maybe) thought he was still an OK player. You are speaking as though Stearns works with a crystal ball and knew at the time Santana would hit .200, therefore he should've given him away for nothing! It doesn't make any sense. Why do I get the feeling you would have been all over his back in February had he traded him for some low level prospect?

 

I haven't seen anybody say you can't criticize Stearns. It just looks like the Counsell virus has spread to him.

[jjgott]

 

Right, because our current group is as talented as 2006 which included Fielder, Braun, Gallardo, Hart, Escobar and Nelson Cruz in our top 10. Go back to July of 2005 and add Weeks and Hardy to that list. This group might not even be as good as the 2009 group which had Escobar, Gamel, Lawrie, Jeffress, Cain and Lucroy.

 

Besides Jeffress, I see no pitching. I don't deny that the 2006 Top 10 was great. But that system wasn't deep whatsoever.

 

As a reference, take a look: http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewPower50.do?power50Id=73

 

Woo boy that was a lot of grade C middle relief we had there. I remember how devastated everyone was losing Inman in the Linebrink trade.

[82brewcrew82]

There is more pitching now, but the Brewers were still able to get guys like Greinke, Sabathia, and Marcum with their "2nd-tier" position prospects. So if it just comes down to wanting Stearns to make more win-now moves, I don't think it matters whether you're talking about pitching prospects or position players.

 

If anything, the fact that the current farm system is more balanced is all the more reason to stand pat unless you get an opportunity that you can't pass up - like not being real enthusiastic (speculation of course, but very plausible) about your #1 prospect and then being able to trade him for Christian Yelich. Those teams wouldn't have been able to get enough pitching to field a contender without some trades or free agents, but this team could address most of their holes from within if they're just patient.

I'd have a hard time calling Escobar, Odorizzi, LaPorta and Lawrie "B" prospects. All of those guys were well regarded nationally. Cain and Brantley were just beginning to emerge. That was supposed to be our "second wave" (along with Lucroy). The Fielder, Hardy, Weeks, Braun, Hart wave had already been established at that point. That future was sold down the river for a couple of playoff appearances. Rightfully or wrongfully, that is what happened.

 

Never mind that those assets had to be used on pitching because of the organizations inability to develop it's own pitching. Which of course then meant we had to back-fill those offensive positions with less than ideal options because the system also lacked the depth to back-fill from within. The lack of depth is also highlighted by the fact that once those players are all gone this system hit rock bottom and was considered one of the worst in the game for a period of years. The lack of depth also forced the team to hold on to players too long because they lacked the internal resources to replace them (and thus trade veteran pieces for more talent) and couldn't afford to pay for said talent.

[paul253]

No, that's not what I said. Stearns tried to trade him. Hard. The rest of the league, at least the teams that had a need there, obviously did not like him. Maybe Stearns still did, and didn't want to give him away for nothing. He was trying to trade his depth, but (maybe) thought he was still an OK player.

 

You’re making a ton of assumptions here. First off you have no idea how hard Stearns was trying to trade him. He could have very well told teams “he’s available but only if the price is right”. That’s very different than actively trying to trade him.

 

Also, you have no idea how much other teams liked him. Just because they didn’t pull the trigger on a trade for him doesn’t mean they didn’t like him. We didn’t pull the the trigger on a trade for Manny Machado. Does that mean we didn’t like him? Of course not. It means the asking price was too high, which very well could have been the case with Santana.

 

You are speaking as though Stearns works with a crystal ball and knew at the time Santana would hit .200, therefore he should've given him away for nothing! It doesn't make any sense. Why do I get the feeling you would have been all over his back in February had he traded him for some low level prospect

 

I’m confused. You are the one telling us how free swinging and inconsistent a hitter he is. Not me. All I said is that IF he is the kind of player that YOU said he is then Stearns should have taken anything he could get for him. I never flat out said we should have taken anything we could get for him. I only said that would be the case IF he was as you said he is. I happpen to think a little more highly of him than you. But that doesn’t change the fact that DS missed an opportunity to trade him.

[FVBrewerFan]

But that doesn’t change the fact that DS missed an opportunity to trade him.

 

How do you know that? What if nobody offered anything for him? More likely, the return was very minimal. If that was the case it wasn't a missed opportunity, it made sense to hold onto him. Still does.

[paul253]

How do you know that? What if nobody offered anything for him? More likely, the return was very minimal. If that was the case it wasn't a missed opportunity, it made sense to hold onto him. Still does

 

Given the year he had I find it highly unlikely nobody offered anything. It’s think it’s far more likely teams did offer something but it wasn’t what Stearns wanted.

 

And yes, you could argue that if the return wasn’t what he wanted it made sense to hold onto him. But there is risk in that is there not? We risk him having a bad year or getting hurt and all of a sudden whatever value he had is gone, which is exactly what happened. Stearns gambled by hanging onto him and so far it looks like he lost. I’m not sure why we can’t call that a mistake. Is it possible that four years from now that it will turn out ok? Sure. But perhaps we can revisit that argument in four years because all we have to go on is what has happened so far.

[FVBrewerFan]

How do you know that? What if nobody offered anything for him? More likely, the return was very minimal. If that was the case it wasn't a missed opportunity, it made sense to hold onto him. Still does

 

Given the year he had I find it highly unlikely nobody offered anything. It’s think it’s far more likely teams did offer something but it wasn’t what Stearns wanted.

 

And yes, you could argue that if the return wasn’t what he wanted it made sense to hold onto him. But there is risk in that is there not? We risk him having a bad year or getting hurt and all of a sudden whatever value he had is gone, which is exactly what happened. Stearns gambled by hanging onto him and so far it looks like he lost. I’m not sure why we can’t call that a mistake. Is it possible that four years from now that it will turn out ok? Sure. But perhaps we can revisit that argument in four years because all we have to go on is what has happened so far.

 

Sure, there's a risk in every decision made on a player. But if the return was very small, no, I don't think it was a mistake. Likely it was a very low level prospect or two, so that would really be a no-brainer to hold onto him.

 

I guess I don't look at most moves as binary- either a great move or a mistake. For example, bringing Jeffress back wasn't a great move IMHO, it was worth giving it a shot and it worked out. Just as bringing back Yo didn't work, and he got cut.

 

Stearns isn't perfect, no GM is perfect. But not trading Santana isn't a check in the mistake column for me. It's only you and me, and we just disagree. ; )

[bill hAll Star]

How do you know that? What if nobody offered anything for him? More likely, the return was very minimal. If that was the case it wasn't a missed opportunity, it made sense to hold onto him. Still does

 

Given the year he had I find it highly unlikely nobody offered anything. It’s think it’s far more likely teams did offer something but it wasn’t what Stearns wanted.

 

And yes, you could argue that if the return wasn’t what he wanted it made sense to hold onto him. But there is risk in that is there not? We risk him having a bad year or getting hurt and all of a sudden whatever value he had is gone, which is exactly what happened. Stearns gambled by hanging onto him and so far it looks like he lost. I’m not sure why we can’t call that a mistake. Is it possible that four years from now that it will turn out ok? Sure. But perhaps we can revisit that argument in four years because all we have to go on is what has happened so far.

 

We're using hindsight logic on Santana which I highly disagree with (and I agree we probably didn't get great offers), could we also use hindsight on the rumored trade targets?

 

Chris Archer: Santana was supposed to be just part of an Archer package. Imagine we gave up more...so far this year, Archer has been about as valuable as our ho-hum starters that didn't cost an arm and a leg to acquire.

 

Danny Salazar: Injury, basically hasn't played.

 

Kipnis: Part of the Salazar speculation. Decent defense, nothing on offense.

 

So of the names rumored that Santana was supposed to be part of deals for, none of the guys coming back would've been making much of an impact either. If one suggests that it was fine to deal Santana for a lowball offer...is having Santana under control with a chance to recover next year more valuable than some middling AA prospect? I personally think so.

[paul253]

If one suggests that it was fine to deal Santana for a lowball offer...is having Santana under control with a chance to recover next year more valuable than some middling AA prospect? I personally think so

 

Look we can go on and on. But what we do know is this. Domingo Santana was not needed given the other offseason moves. David Stearns tried to trade him in the offseason but didn’t. Domingo Santana has had a terrible year, his trade value has tanked and now we need him even less. If you think Stearns handled this situation perfectly fine that is certainly your right. Personally I think he could have handled it better. I think he gambled that Santana would have another good year and his trade value would increase and I think he lost that gamble big time.

[SeaBass]

How do you know that? What if nobody offered anything for him? More likely, the return was very minimal. If that was the case it wasn't a missed opportunity, it made sense to hold onto him. Still does

 

Given the year he had I find it highly unlikely nobody offered anything. It’s think it’s far more likely teams did offer something but it wasn’t what Stearns wanted.

 

And yes, you could argue that if the return wasn’t what he wanted it made sense to hold onto him. But there is risk in that is there not? We risk him having a bad year or getting hurt and all of a sudden whatever value he had is gone, which is exactly what happened. Stearns gambled by hanging onto him and so far it looks like he lost. I’m not sure why we can’t call that a mistake. Is it possible that four years from now that it will turn out ok? Sure. But perhaps we can revisit that argument in four years because all we have to go on is what has happened so far.

Hey by this logic shouldn't we all be upset Stearns didn't trade Aguilar too? He was 3rd on the 1B depth chart and had even less of a reason to be on the 25 man opening day roster than Santana. Clear mistake, right? Or maybe Stearns has a price and sticks to it. I don't see that as a bad trait, whether it works out or not.

 

We don't hear moaning and groaning about Aguilar though do we? That's a zero credit non-move by Stearns. Hindsight crap arguments are my favorite.

[bill hAll Star]

If one suggests that it was fine to deal Santana for a lowball offer...is having Santana under control with a chance to recover next year more valuable than some middling AA prospect? I personally think so

 

Look we can go on and on. But what we do know is this. Domingo Santana was not needed given the other offseason moves. David Stearns tried to trade him in the offseason but didn’t. Domingo Santana has had a terrible year, his trade value has tanked and now we need him even less. If you think Stearns handled this situation perfectly fine that is certainly your right. Personally I think he could have handled it better. I think he gambled that Santana would have another good year and his trade value would increase and I think he lost that gamble big time.

 

Yes, he handled it perfectly fine (unless it leaks that we were offered a starting pitcher or 2B) given what we know about what might've been offered. Next question.

[KeithStone53151]

If one suggests that it was fine to deal Santana for a lowball offer...is having Santana under control with a chance to recover next year more valuable than some middling AA prospect? I personally think so

 

Look we can go on and on. But what we do know is this. Domingo Santana was not needed given the other offseason moves. David Stearns tried to trade him in the offseason but didn’t. Domingo Santana has had a terrible year, his trade value has tanked and now we need him even less. If you think Stearns handled this situation perfectly fine that is certainly your right. Personally I think he could have handled it better. I think he gambled that Santana would have another good year and his trade value would increase and I think he lost that gamble big time.

 

Yes, he handled it perfectly fine. Next question.

 

I tend to agree, though it's hard to definitively know how he handled it without knowing what kind of deals were on the table for Santana. For all we know, the demand simply wasn't there.

[82brewcrew82]

Look we can go on and on. But what we do know is this. Domingo Santana was not needed given the other offseason moves. David Stearns tried to trade him in the offseason but didn’t. Domingo Santana has had a terrible year, his trade value has tanked and now we need him even less. If you think Stearns handled this situation perfectly fine that is certainly your right. Personally I think he could have handled it better. I think he gambled that Santana would have another good year and his trade value would increase and I think he lost that gamble big time.

Every personnel decision a GM makes is a gamble. Just because a decision is made doesn't mean there is a mistake. He could have cut Aguilar before the season, does he "win big time" for that gamble? What if Santana rebounds next year, is it still a mistake?