David Stearns Free Pass??

[FVBrewerFan]

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.

 

Which point to Stearns' biggest flaw. He should post the details of every trade offer so we can proclaim when we are right.

[82brewcrew82]

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.

 

Which point to Stearns' biggest flaw. He should post the details of every trade offer so we can proclaim when we are right.

Well, that and he should comment quickly, openly and honestly about every single rumor.

[bill hAll Star]

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.

 

I added more to it apparently right after you replied. Yes, if someone offered a stud prospect or great veteran at a position of need, then Stearns botched it. I really believe that he just turned down a few lower offers, though. I doubt he valued Santana too much and would've turned down some stud pitcher or something.

[KeithStone53151]

I added more to it apparently right after you replied. Yes, if someone offered a stud prospect or great veteran at a position of need, then Stearns botched it. I really believe that he just turned down a few lower offers, though. I doubt he valued Santana too much and would've turned down some stud pitcher or something.

 

Right. If Stearns didn't deal Santana + prospects for Clevinger or something of the sort...shame on Stearns. Unlikely though, the media gave the impression we were actively trying to trade Santana...which makes sense given the moves we made. So my guess is the offers were very low and he was not worth moving.

[paul253]

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

 

By this logic we can argue he took a risk not trading Aguilar and the risk paid off. However by your logic we can’t give him credit for it. If we can’t blame him for losing gambles then how can we praise him for winning gambles? See a bit hypocritical.

 

Hindsight crap arguments are my favorite

 

Fair enough. Then I suspect we’ll never again complain about a first draft pick that doesn’t pan out. Or a free agent signing that turns out bad. Nobody ever has the right to complain about a move that doesn’t pan out. Is that what you’re saying?

 

GMs are judged in hindsight all the time. If we can’t look at the results of their moves how else are we supposed to judge them? On whether the moves made sense at the time? I know it wasn’t Stearns but drafting Jungmann and Bradley made perfect sense at the time. So what, we can’t complain about that draft because we didn’t know they’d turn out as bad picks?

 

He could have cut Aguilar before the season, does he "win big time" for that gambl

 

Absolutely he wins big for not cutting Aguilar (not that cutting Aguilar was ever an option this is a straw man argument). But yes he should absolutely be given credit for hanging onto Aguilar.

 

Which point to Stearns' biggest flaw. He should post the details of every trade offer so we can proclaim when we are right

 

Well if he did that then we couldn’t assume that he was only offered absolute crap in return for Santana, which everyone who wants to defend him over this is doing. Everyone is just assuming Stearns was offered crap in return because surely he couldn’t ever possibly turn down a deal that would have worked out for us.

 

I doubt he valued Santana too much and would've turned down some stud pitcher or something.

 

I doubt he was offered a stud pitcher. But it was rumored he wa looking for major league pitching in return. I think it’s plausible that he was offered prospects but didn’t want prospects. Or he was offered other positions players. Or perhaps he was offered pitcher A but he wanted pitcher B. I think that’s more likely.

[MadScientist]

Looking at the pitching moves this off season, most of which were lobbied for here, which would you do now:

Sign Darvish

Sign Arrieta

Sign Lynn

Sign Cobb

Sigh Chacin

Trade for Chatwood

 

Have to say that Stearns picked the right move (not the one I would have done). I can't believe it was just luck.

[danzig6767]

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.

What happened with Segura happens all of the time in baseball.

 

A player leaves an organization and a new hitting coach or pitching coach tweaks something and that player gets better. Or say a pitcher gets help from another pitcher on that new team on how to throw his changeup or cutter, next thing you know that pitcher is quite a bit more effective.

 

The list is long of players who leave one organization whether via being waived or trade and for a variety of potential reasons, they perform better with that new team. And even without leaving an organization, many players end up surprising their team by being way more productive than expected, while others with higher expectations, nosedive so badly that the team gets caught off guard.

 

Obviously to be a good GM, they have to be right more often than wrong, but more good fortune than bad luck along the way sure helps a lot also, especially for small market GM's.

[jjfanec]

Looking at the pitching moves this off season, most of which were lobbied for here, which would you do now:

Sign Darvish

Sign Arrieta

Sign Lynn

Sign Cobb

Sigh Chacin

Trade for Chatwood

 

Have to say that Stearns picked the right move (not the one I would have done). I can't believe it was just luck.

 

The Cubs signed Chatwood for 3 years 38 million

Arrieta has the best numbers but that contract is huge. Chacin was way less risk and has been almost as good.

[danzig6767]

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.

Actually, Santana has been needed.

 

Given all of the injuries and struggles of other players, had Domingo hit anywhere close to like he did last year, that would have been a huge boost to a Brewers offense which has consistently struggled to score runs. For the last few weeks, the lineup depth has been so thin, scrubs like Saladino and Perez have been hitting 5th with lots of baserunners on.

 

Stearns has talked often about how much he values organizational depth because regularly, whether it's injuries or other factors, in a blink an area of the team which you initially thought had lots of quality players, things can get thin and suddenly you have below average players being forced in the lineup or pitching staff.

 

Obviously Santana has struggled mightily this year instead of building off what he did last season, but had he hit well as we all hoped he would, his not being traded could easily have helped win some of these brutal losses where the team pitched well, but simply couldn't score runs.

[paul253]

Actually, Santana has been needed.

 

Given all of the injuries and struggles of other players, had Domingo hit anywhere close to like he did last year, that would have been a huge boost to a Brewers offense which has consistently struggled to score runs. For the last few weeks, the lineup depth has been so thin, scrubs like Saladino and Perez have been hitting 5th with lots of baserunners on

 

Isn’t this the same “hindsight” argument we aren’t supposed to be using?

 

At the time we had Cain, Yelich, Braun, Phillips, and Broxton as major league ready outfielders. We also had Thames who could play there. That’s 6 additional options. We didn’t “need” him. We had plenty of quality depth to replace him.

[MadScientist]

Looking at the pitching moves this off season, most of which were lobbied for here, which would you do now:

Sign Darvish

Sign Arrieta

Sign Lynn

Sign Cobb

Sigh Chacin

Trade for Chatwood

 

Have to say that Stearns picked the right move (not the one I would have done). I can't believe it was just luck.

 

The Cubs signed Chatwood for 3 years 38 million

Arrieta has the best numbers but that contract is huge. Chacin was way less risk and has been almost as good.

I stand corrected on Chatwood. However I'd argue that Chacin has overall better numbers than Arrieta. He has better H9, HR9, K9, FIP, WHIP, with more innings pitched. They have the same K/BB. Arrieta has slightly better ERA and BB9.

[danzig6767]

Actually, Santana has been needed.

 

Given all of the injuries and struggles of other players, had Domingo hit anywhere close to like he did last year, that would have been a huge boost to a Brewers offense which has consistently struggled to score runs. For the last few weeks, the lineup depth has been so thin, scrubs like Saladino and Perez have been hitting 5th with lots of baserunners on

 

Isn’t this the same “hindsight” argument we aren’t supposed to be using?

 

At the time we had Cain, Yelich, Braun, Phillips, and Broxton as major league ready outfielders. We also had Thames who could play there. That’s 6 additional options. We didn’t “need” him. We had plenty of quality depth to replace him.

But in reality, the team hasn't been able to replace what they hoped Santana would do at the plate after what he did last season.

 

Braun is always hurt/on the DL or suffering from some nagging strain or pull. When healthy, he has a .692 OPS.

 

Broxton is CF depth, not corner OF depth where he can't hit well enough to play RF often. Much of his value as a player resides in his defense in CF, but we have Cain playing that position.

 

Phillips is similar to Broxton. A good defensive CF, but also a strikeout machine who won't hit well enough to play LF or RF often. He had only a .742 OPS in a AAA hitters haven.

 

Thames at least can hit well enough vs righties to justify regular corner outfield at bats, but he's hurt often and also makes Santana look like a Gold Glove outfielder.

 

Had Santana hit as the team hoped for, with Braun and Thames missing so many games, along with Braun hitting .229 and a .275 OBP, Santana would have received a lot of at bats in the 5th spot in the order where consistently a bunch of baserunners have been on, only to be stranded by guys who instead should be batting 7th or 8th in a better lineup.

 

The struggles at the plate by both Santana and Arcia are a fairly big factor in why the offense has struggled so much. A .875 OPS bat like Domingo was last year would be a godsend to the Brewers lineup where so often after the first four batters hit, it's been a wasteland of below average to bad hitters.

[jjfanec]

Looking at the pitching moves this off season, most of which were lobbied for here, which would you do now:

Sign Darvish

Sign Arrieta

Sign Lynn

Sign Cobb

Sigh Chacin

Trade for Chatwood

 

Have to say that Stearns picked the right move (not the one I would have done). I can't believe it was just luck.

 

The Cubs signed Chatwood for 3 years 38 million

Arrieta has the best numbers but that contract is huge. Chacin was way less risk and has been almost as good.

I stand corrected on Chatwood. However I'd argue that Chacin has overall better numbers than Arrieta. He has better H9, HR9, K9, FIP, WHIP, with more innings pitched. They have the same K/BB. Arrieta has slightly better ERA and BB9.

 

Thanks for looking at the numbers deeper than I did. Chacin is easily the best pitcher signing and could be the best overall pitcher. All at 2 years 15 million. Well done Stearns! Could be argued he signed the best pitcher, best or second best position player and made the best trade. Not a bad off season

[brewmann04]

DS and CC wil. Share some blame if the fail to make the playoffs

[coolhandluke121]

DS and CC wil. Share some blame if the fail to make the playoffs

 

They deserve a lot of credit for getting anywhere near the playoffs considering where they were 2 years ago at this time. You* don't deserve a good team if you let this kind of excellence turn you into a complainer instead of appreciating it. That's called being spoiled.

 

*Generic "you". Not necessarily directed at you.

[tmwiese55]

I'd say the biggest criticism or mistake on Stearns end so far would be not having a trade locked in place for Santana exactly when the Yelich/Cain moves happened. My guess/assumption is that he got totally boned by another GM who backed out after seeing the other moves, but that trade should have happened simultaneously. Other than that, nobody is perfect of course but overall you have to be pretty happy with how things have been going and can see the logic in anything he's done even if it hasn't worked out (take the Villar/Scooter decision as an example). Thus far Yelich/Cain have been home runs.

 

I fully expect at least one move by the deadline due to the 40 man crunch which should hopefully address what some folks here are starting to hate on him about. We'll see what comes our way.

[coolhandluke121]

Other than that, nobody is perfect of course but overall you have to be pretty happy with how things have been going and can see the logic in anything he's done even if it hasn't worked out (take the Villar/Scooter decision as an example).

 

The only thing I kind of disagree with is the "pretty happy" thing. I think people should be ecstatic considering where this club and farm system were when he got the job. His success rate on moves and non-moves is unbelievable. I compared it to Ted Williams hitting .406 - it just doesn't make sense to ask if he's getting a "free pass" for the times he wasn't successful. Of course you're going to make some outs, but holy cow.

 

It also seems like people are acting like the team would be better off if they had gotten their way. Like, "OMG I would have kept Scooter, what a terrible decision!!" Yeah, and what else would those people have done? Would the team have Aguilar, Thames, Shaw, Jeffress, Chacin, Cain, Yelich, Peralta, and Guerra? Think of all the trades he's made, all the other players he could have chosen to trade instead, and all the other prospects he could have acquired instead of the ones he did. Think of all the other prospects he could have traded for Yelich, instead of the ones whose value has plummeted since the trade. It's amazing that he got so much value out of those trades. Now do the same exercise with his free agents, like Chacin, Thames, Jeffress, Albers, and Cain. Out of all the myriad possibilities, he literally chose some of the best values on the entire market and otherwise stayed out of it. It's downright incredible.

 

I guess I don't see the point of being at all unhappy with him. Ted Williams surely chased a bad pitch and struck out a few times when he hit .406, but it would have been obnoxious to complain about him.

[tmwiese55]

Yea that's fair, I could have used a more positive phrasing than "pretty happy", but yea we're on the same page.

[Boomer5]

Other than that, nobody is perfect of course but overall you have to be pretty happy with how things have been going and can see the logic in anything he's done even if it hasn't worked out (take the Villar/Scooter decision as an example).

 

The only thing I kind of disagree with is the "pretty happy" thing. I think people should be ecstatic considering where this club and farm system were when he got the job. His success rate on moves and non-moves is unbelievable. I compared it to Ted Williams hitting .406 - it just doesn't make sense to ask if he's getting a "free pass" for the times he wasn't successful. Of course you're going to make some outs, but holy cow.

 

It also seems like people are acting like the team would be better off if they had gotten their way. Like, "OMG I would have kept Scooter, what a terrible decision!!" Yeah, and what else would those people have done? Would the team have Aguilar, Thames, Shaw, Jeffress, Chacin, Cain, Yelich, Peralta, and Guerra? Think of all the trades he's made, all the other players he could have chosen to trade instead, and all the other prospects he could have acquired instead of the ones he did. Think of all the other prospects he could have traded for Yelich, instead of the ones whose value has plummeted since the trade. It's amazing that he got so much value out of those trades. Now do the same exercise with his free agents, like Chacin, Thames, Jeffress, Albers, and Cain. Out of all the myriad possibilities, he literally chose some of the best values on the entire market and otherwise stayed out of it. It's downright incredible.

 

I guess I don't see the point of being at all unhappy with him. Ted Williams surely chased a bad pitch and struck out a few times when he hit .406, but it would have been obnoxious to complain about him.

 

Did you really just compare a GM whose career high in wins is 86 to Ted Williams?

[cesser000]

Did you really just compare a GM whose career high in wins is 86 to Ted Williams?

Well, Williams' career-high in wins was also 86.

[coolhandluke121]

Did you really just compare a GM whose career high in wins is 86 to Ted Williams?

Well, Williams' career-high in wins was also 86.

 

His absurd success rate on transactions is comparable to hitting .400 so yes. That's what you judge a gm on. You ignore all context and act like you're adding some kind of insight. Boston only won 84 games when Williams hit .406; does that mean you can't compare his season to other great seasons? He only had 120 RBI's so does that put a damper on how great he was? Of course not, because there's so much context and so many other people involved.

 

The reason they've "only" been an 85-90 win team for the last 2 years is because of all the short-sighted moves they made to decimate the organization before he became gm, which is the equivalent of a great hitter not having a lot of RBI's because there aren't enough people on base when he hits. I'm sure a lot of the people who don't understand that are the same ones advocating more short-sighted moves right now, but thankfully they're better than that and Mark A appears to have learned his lesson. An average gm would have about 70 wins last year and 75 this year, all with a weaker farm system. The difference he's made is nothing short of elite.