Two questions about Stearns

[Bulldogboy]

Who is the best pitcher that David Stearns has acquired during his time as gm?? What does it say about him as a gm? I'm guessing it's Chacin? I for one don't think Stearns values pitching the way most GM's appear to. There has been a stunning lack of urgency regarding pitching since he has come on board. In fact it's possible it's going to cost them at least one playoff appearance. I compare this to Doug Melvin who isn't considered a pitching first gm. He went all in to acquire both CC Sabathia and Zack Greinke at times when he felt that the on field team was ready to win now and needed a boost on the mound. These acquisitions led to the only two playoff appearance in the Melvin era. Without question the Greinke price was a difficult one to pay but necessary. The contrast to the lack of action in the Stearns era on this front. It can be argued that the teams of the last two years may have been better on the field but lacking in that number one starter area. In fact Greinke was acquired despite the fact that Gallardo was considered a number one type talent. In my opinion Stearns needs to get more heat for the lack of pitching. He still has a week to go but he has shown zero inclination to pull the trigger on the pitching this team needs. Is this just a philosophy or just

a byproduct of an industry that is changing? Thoughts?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Who is the best pitcher that David Stearns has acquired during his time as gm?? What does it say about him as a gm? I'm guessing it's Chacin? I for one don't think Stearns values pitching the way most GM's appear to. There has been a stunning lack of urgency regarding pitching since he has come on board. In fact it's possible it's going to cost them at least one playoff appearance. I compare this to Doug Melvin who isn't considered a pitching first gm. He went all in to acquire both CC Sabathia and Zack Greinke at times when he felt that the on field team was ready to win now and needed a boost on the mound. These acquisitions led to the only two playoff appearance in the Melvin era. Without question the Greinke price was a difficult one to pay but necessary. The contrast to the lack of action in the Stearns era on this front. It can be argued that the teams of the last two years may have been better on the field but lacking in that number one starter area. In fact Greinke was acquired despite the fact that Gallardo was considered a number one type talent. In my opinion Stearns needs to get more heat for the lack of pitching. He still has a week to go but he has shown zero inclination to pull the trigger on the pitching this team needs. Is this just a philosophy or just a byproduct of an industry that is changing? Thoughts?

 

I agree with your premise, but feel that he has chosen to devote the team's limited free agent and prospect trade capital to adding to the offense, while they have attempted to fill the needs of the pitching staff from within. They seem to be close to having a home-grown #1 type in Brandon Woodruff, but little else on the horizon, depending on how you feel about Burnes, Peralta and Houser. Davies and Anderson are solid rotation arms, and Chacin was very good last year before falling off this season. It wouldn't surprise me if their analytics crew have crunched all the cost/benefit analysis numbers and determined that the cost to either buy a TOR arm in free agency, or trade for one, is just too high. Of course we can argue that as fans, but if that's the decision they've made, it is what it is. I don't doubt that he has attempted to acquire high-end arms, but always seems to be the bridesmaid in those scenarios. That tells me that he hasn't seen enough value to get them over the hump.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think it's funny that people seem to think getting a great pitcher is simply a matter of will. Like if we REALLY want one, well then, we just have to suck it up and do it!

[Bulldogboy]

I think it's funny that people seem to think getting a great pitcher is simply a matter of will. Like if we REALLY want one, well then, we just have to suck it up and do it!

This answer doesn't answer the question asked. That being said my point is that Melvin took a different tack and was successful in bringing in a much needed stud starter. If you think Stearns is trying fine but we haven't seen any evidence of him getting the job done. The question is relevant given the results to this point.

[Eye Black]

There’s an alternate universe where the Brewers acquired Jose Quintana in 2017 and the Cubs currently have Christian Yelich starring in the outfield for them.

 

That made me ill just typing out, but in all seriousness the Brewers were reportedly very close to acquiring Quintana which would have almost certainly cost the Brewers Lewis Brinson at the time. I don’t think Stearns is opposed to trading for pitching, I think the problem is the front office wants to acquire a pitcher with years of control rather than paying up for a TOR pitcher for 1-2 seasons. Those are obviously difficult acquisitions to come by since not a lot of teams look to move a good starting pitcher with years of control remaining. I don’t know if it is the right or wrong move, but that’s my sense of it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Stearns, like Melvin, does not have the cash to get a Greinke/Sabathia arm. Stearns, unlike Melvin, does not have the prospects to get that arm either.

 

When he did (arguably not as valuable pieces as the ones Melvin dealt), he used them to get five years of Christian Yelich. The Brewers are not a very great spot right now. Not much of a farm, not much at the major league level. Honestly, their best approach at this point is probably figuring what the H is wrong with Burnes, hoping Peralta continues to grow and letting Woodruff shine. Anderson/Chacin/Davies/Gio types will probably be what they have to use to round out the rotation for a while.

 

Or find another Ben Sheets and hope he stays healthier. It's extremely hard to do this. I would say it is THE hardest thing to do in baseball. I suspect that Joey is correct, and they have probably figured out it's an unrealistic path to winning for them.

[Jopal78]

Chase Anderson is the best starting pitcher acquired by David Stearns. 100 starts, 35 wins vs. 25 losses, 1.25 WHIP, 3.89 ERA, 4.59 FIP, 7.5 WAR as a Brewer.

 

The Brewers are never going to have a top of the rotation starter unless they develop it from their own farm system. Teams don't typically trade minor league pitchers who project as top of the rotation arms very often, and the Brewers have never got into a bidding war for the 30+ million dollar a year starting pitcher. I think Stearns would love to sign a top of the rotation free agent pitcher, or trade for the next Lucas Giolito.

 

However, being a Realist, Stearns has to come up with a philosophy to filed a competitive team without elite starting pitching talent, which I think is what we saw last year. They tried to go that route again this year but the starters have not been as good as last year, and the bullpen had a couple of key injuries and lack of quality depth.

[pacopete4]

Stearns whiffs in the bullpen have held this team back more than anything.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Knebel is probably the biggest nightmare of the year. He's one guy, and they've had a lot of problems. But maybe if you have him, it's easier to justify getting one more good arm for the pen. He was the most sure thing they had coming back, a certified blue chip talent that wasn't just getting lucky.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

Stearns whiffs in the bullpen have held this team back more than anything.

 

I do agree with your thought here. But going into spring training having Hader, Knebel, JJ all lines up to be in the bullpen after dominating 2018. And adding a high upside arm in wahl, hopeful loogey in Claudio. How much more was he supposed to add going into the year? Not to mention still having Williams as potential but inconsistent. On paper going into spring training I would’ve said bullpen was a strength. People pitching in situations not advantageous to their success has hurt, ie guerra, Claudio.

[MrTPlush]

Stearns whiffs in the bullpen have held this team back more than anything.

 

It is pretty amazing. Has he had even one signing that was really really good? Or via trade? I guess Andrew Swarzak was a pretty nice addition.

 

I guess giving Neftali Feliz $5.5mil was a good sign of what Stearns knows about building a bullpen.

[pacopete4]

Stearns whiffs in the bullpen have held this team back more than anything.

 

I do agree with your thought here. But going into spring training having Hader, Knebel, JJ all lines up to be in the bullpen after dominating 2018. And adding a high upside arm in wahl, hopeful loogey in Claudio. How much more was he supposed to add going into the year? Not to mention still having Williams as potential but inconsistent. On paper going into spring training I would’ve said bullpen was a strength. People pitching in situations not advantageous to their success has hurt, ie guerra, Claudio.

 

I do agree that bad luck has played a role in this season.

[OnTheBlack]

There’s an alternate universe where the Brewers acquired Jose Quintana in 2017 and the Cubs currently have Christian Yelich starring in the outfield for them.

 

That made me ill just typing out, but in all seriousness the Brewers were reportedly very close to acquiring Quintana which would have almost certainly cost the Brewers Lewis Brinson at the time. I don’t think Stearns is opposed to trading for pitching, I think the problem is the front office wants to acquire a pitcher with years of control rather than paying up for a TOR pitcher for 1-2 seasons. Those are obviously difficult acquisitions to come by since not a lot of teams look to move a good starting pitcher with years of control remaining. I don’t know if it is the right or wrong move, but that’s my sense of it.

 

 

Lets take another step to alternate reality. There's one in which the Brewers are paying Yu Darvish right now and the Cubs are not.

 

But lets say the Brewers did trade for this ace pitcher last year. What's the future look like now? Keston? Likely gone. Turang? May well be gone. And if we're talking about Greinke or CC, throw in a guy like Burnes or Peralta as well.

Who are all these pitchers that he's "passed," on?

 

He's made an been in on just about every FA pitcher of consequence who was willing to take.

But I'd say he's done a pretty good job of picking up pitchers. If you scratch out the name and just look at the production, Wade Miley has been a pretty damn good pitcher since last year.

 

But this answer may well be a very different answer had Stearns not done almost too good of a job right out of the gate and instead of a 2 year rebuild, had the Brewers gone through a 5 year rebuild like the Astros or other teams. It'd may have helped to get a crack at the top college arms a few times over in the draft.

[Lathund]

This answer doesn't answer the question asked. That being said my point is that Melvin took a different tack and was successful in bringing in a much needed stud starter. If you think Stearns is trying fine but we haven't seen any evidence of him getting the job done. The question is relevant given the results to this point.

 

. It wouldn't surprise me if their analytics crew have crunched all the cost/benefit analysis numbers and determined that the cost to either buy a TOR arm in free agency, or trade for one, is just too high.

 

So I think Stearns absolutely could "get the job done" if he wanted to but chooses not to as per above. There are posters on here who say that he doesn't have the courage or will or decisiveness or other related words to make big moves, that he's too passive etc. Which is obviously wrong to anyone who actually looks at what he's done. Trading for Yelich, signing Cain, non-tendering the NL HR champion etc. Which means that he either does not see the value in the big pitching acqusitions, or he does but the right one hasn't appeared yet at a price that makes sense.

 

I'm in the former camp, I don't believe that those acquisitions really make sense unless (1) it's the last piece of an already WS-calibre team and/or (2) you can afford to fail. It just seems to me that the contracts/trades for top starters are priced in a manner that underestimates the risks of pitching; of injuries, of decline etc. By that I mean that in a trade the team(s) involved makes some kind of projection of performance, taking into account risk of injuries, age-related declines etc to form a range of likely outcomes, and based on some median or percentile or most likely outcome therein set the price point of what they demand or are willing to pay. And that price point, in my view, is pushed too far towards the best case scenarios to really make sense. Especially when it comes to the top-end deals. Sometimes it works out spectacularly well, like signing Max Scherzer or trading for Chris Sale. Sometimes it's a bit 'meh' like the Jose Quintana trade. And sometimes you get James Shields, Jordan Zimmerman, Shelby Miller.

 

So taking chances on young homegrown pitching, taking chances on rebound players and so forth is necessary to have a chance at winning for a smaller team. There's no way to fill the roster with acquired star players through free agency or trades, there's just not the resources for that. And even if you could acquire those stars, you still need to fill out the rest of the roster; having Mike Trout means nothing if the supporting cast sucks, and when you have traded away every good prospect and filled out the payroll with star player salaries you have noone to fill those spots. So you need to build (most of) the team through the farm and through the "scrapheap". Because if you can't develop that homegrown pitching (Players in general really, but pitchers in particular) it doesn't matter what else you do, you're not gonna win anything.

 

Going out there and making those big moves puts a clock on you. Every move made to strengthen now is one that weakens you overall (Even in perfectly fair and balanced trades and contracts), often significantly so when it comes to the moves that "move the needle". So you make those moves when the other pieces are in place, or about to be in place. When you know, or feel fairly certain about, which of your homegrown players are going to contribute or not. The prospects you "sell high" on are also the ones most likely to help you in the future. When you make the big moves and empty the farm or reach close to the max payroll you better know that you have the other pieces ready. If not, you're just shooting yourself in the foot by only very marginally improving your chances of winning now or in the extreme near future, at the cost of significantly hurting you for a long time going forward. That part is even more true of the expensive rentals. They give you just one very brief chance, and due to the nature of such trades at a terrible cost for a long time.

 

Basically, there is a lot more risk when it comes to acquiring pitching. That goes for both the big time trades as well as when it comes to drafting, international signings, or acquiring prospects. Compare the signing bonuses and the rankings for international prospects (Usually 16-17 when they sign) between hitters and pitchers. Look at the draft. You can see the same thing to a lesser extent for catchers. Hitters are generally "safer", at all levels. But you still have to get pitching somehow. You can take the development route which will have many failures, but cheap ones, or you could go for the finished products which carries less risk but at astronomical costs and significant consequences when it fails. The Cubs went with the approach of drafting hitters high in the draft, hoping to get lucky with pitchers further down but relying on FA/trades to supply most of their major league pitching.

 

But I believe teams like the Brewers, with a lot less room to fail, have to do it differently. As I alluded to above, developing pitching internally is a prerequisite for success, no matter what other moves are made. It might be augmented by a big money pitching signing, but that can never be the foundation. I believe, and I suspect that Stearns does too to an extent, that you invest the big resources in the more certain thing (To the extent anything is ever "certain"...), where there is the least variability but perhaps less upside. That is to say position players (See Yelich, Cain, Grandal, Moose even Thames to an extent).

 

 

 

Anyway, this got too long-winded and rambling. Point being basically that I don't think DS sees value in most big-time pitching acquisitions, and would rather put resources towards position players where it's a safer "investment". Which requires pitching to come from within and from the scrapheap. And which I think is a wise move, because even with big-time pitching acquisitions you *still* need to find most of your pitching from those sources, and if you don't you can't win anything anyway.

 

That being said, I don't think the new breed of GMs that DS represents are categorical about this. They *will* make big moves for pitching when it makes sense. It just hasn't yet. I would expect to see more moves like Chacin, or like the Charlie Morton contract etc for pitching. And I wouldn't rule out bigger moves either. I think Gerrit Cole is far more likely to end up a Brewer than Darvish, Corbin, Keuchel or Quintana ever were, despite being signficiantly more expensive than any of them. He's still extremely unlikely to be a Brewer, but real quality in a young(ish) player for multiple years is what I think Stearns would be willing to pay for.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The baseball luck pendulum swung hard the last two years in opposite directions for the Brewers. A handful of guys exceeded expectations last year and many of the same guys all sucked at once. As far as him acquiring guys. Miley was good. Cedeno was pretty useful. Probably still have to consider Chacin being a good add.

[OnTheBlack]

Chase Anderson is the best starting pitcher acquired by David Stearns. 100 starts, 35 wins vs. 25 losses, 1.25 WHIP, 3.89 ERA, 4.59 FIP, 7.5 WAR as a Brewer.

 

The Brewers are never going to have a top of the rotation starter unless they develop it from their own farm system. Teams don't typically trade minor league pitchers who project as top of the rotation arms very often, and the Brewers have never got into a bidding war for the 30+ million dollar a year starting pitcher. I think Stearns would love to sign a top of the rotation free agent pitcher, or trade for the next Lucas Giolito.

 

However, being a Realist, Stearns has to come up with a philosophy to filed a competitive team without elite starting pitching talent, which I think is what we saw last year. They tried to go that route again this year but the starters have not been as good as last year, and the bullpen had a couple of key injuries and lack of quality depth.

 

 

Really? They'll NEVER find a way to acquire a top or the rotation arm unless they draft one? Never huh?

 

That's not being as realist, that's stating opinion as absolute fact. I'd be surprised if the Brewers don't at least attempt to go the FA route this year to acquire a TOR type arm. And the 30+ per year is an arbitrary number. Patrick Corbin didn't get 30 million+ this past year. Very few pitchers have gotten 30+ million a year and I don't believe there's been one in the last few years.

[shanedog19]

Bottom line is we need to draft and develop players much much better than we have. At the end of the day, we are a small market and can't afford to make big free agent splashes with starting pitchers, I don't blame Stearns for that. But a big point of emphasis when he was hired was that he would focus on drafting and developing talent, so far that hasn't panned out.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The Brewers aren't going to sign a TOR starter to a 7-year deal worth $200m. I assume that's what he meant. It's either going to be an in-house guy who walks right after arby or a terrible, small market team selling off their in-house guy one year before FA.

[OnTheBlack]

This answer doesn't answer the question asked. That being said my point is that Melvin took a different tack and was successful in bringing in a much needed stud starter. If you think Stearns is trying fine but we haven't seen any evidence of him getting the job done. The question is relevant given the results to this point.

 

. It wouldn't surprise me if their analytics crew have crunched all the cost/benefit analysis numbers and determined that the cost to either buy a TOR arm in free agency, or trade for one, is just too high.

 

So I think Stearns absolutely could "get the job done" if he wanted to but chooses not to as per above. There are posters on here who say that he doesn't have the courage or will or decisiveness or other related words to make big moves, that he's too passive etc. Which is obviously wrong to anyone who actually looks at what he's done. Trading for Yelich, signing Cain, non-tendering the NL HR champion etc. Which means that he either does not see the value in the big pitching acqusitions, or he does but the right one hasn't appeared yet at a price that makes sense.

 

I'm in the former camp, I don't believe that those acquisitions really make sense unless (1) it's the last piece of an already WS-calibre team and/or (2) you can afford to fail. It just seems to me that the contracts/trades for top starters are priced in a manner that underestimates the risks of pitching; of injuries, of decline etc. By that I mean that in a trade the team(s) involved makes some kind of projection of performance, taking into account risk of injuries, age-related declines etc to form a range of likely outcomes, and based on some median or percentile or most likely outcome therein set the price point of what they demand or are willing to pay. And that price point, in my view, is pushed too far towards the best case scenarios to really make sense. Especially when it comes to the top-end deals. Sometimes it works out spectacularly well, like signing Max Scherzer or trading for Chris Sale. Sometimes it's a bit 'meh' like the Jose Quintana trade. And sometimes you get James Shields, Jordan Zimmerman, Shelby Miller.

 

So taking chances on young homegrown pitching, taking chances on rebound players and so forth is necessary to have a chance at winning for a smaller team. There's no way to fill the roster with acquired star players through free agency or trades, there's just not the resources for that. And even if you could acquire those stars, you still need to fill out the rest of the roster; having Mike Trout means nothing if the supporting cast sucks, and when you have traded away every good prospect and filled out the payroll with star player salaries you have noone to fill those spots. So you need to build (most of) the team through the farm and through the "scrapheap". Because if you can't develop that homegrown pitching (Players in general really, but pitchers in particular) it doesn't matter what else you do, you're not gonna win anything.

 

Going out there and making those big moves puts a clock on you. Every move made to strengthen now is one that weakens you overall (Even in perfectly fair and balanced trades and contracts), often significantly so when it comes to the moves that "move the needle". So you make those moves when the other pieces are in place, or about to be in place. When you know, or feel fairly certain about, which of your homegrown players are going to contribute or not. The prospects you "sell high" on are also the ones most likely to help you in the future. When you make the big moves and empty the farm or reach close to the max payroll you better know that you have the other pieces ready. If not, you're just shooting yourself in the foot by only very marginally improving your chances of winning now or in the extreme near future, at the cost of significantly hurting you for a long time going forward. That part is even more true of the expensive rentals. They give you just one very brief chance, and due to the nature of such trades at a terrible cost for a long time.

 

Basically, there is a lot more risk when it comes to acquiring pitching. That goes for both the big time trades as well as when it comes to drafting, international signings, or acquiring prospects. Compare the signing bonuses and the rankings for international prospects (Usually 16-17 when they sign) between hitters and pitchers. Look at the draft. You can see the same thing to a lesser extent for catchers. Hitters are generally "safer", at all levels. But you still have to get pitching somehow. You can take the development route which will have many failures, but cheap ones, or you could go for the finished products which carries less risk but at astronomical costs and significant consequences when it fails. The Cubs went with the approach of drafting hitters high in the draft, hoping to get lucky with pitchers further down but relying on FA/trades to supply most of their major league pitching.

 

But I believe teams like the Brewers, with a lot less room to fail, have to do it differently. As I alluded to above, developing pitching internally is a prerequisite for success, no matter what other moves are made. It might be augmented by a big money pitching signing, but that can never be the foundation. I believe, and I suspect that Stearns does too to an extent, that you invest the big resources in the more certain thing (To the extent anything is ever "certain"...), where there is the least variability but perhaps less upside. That is to say position players (See Yelich, Cain, Grandal, Moose even Thames to an extent).

 

 

 

Anyway, this got too long-winded and rambling. Point being basically that I don't think DS sees value in most big-time pitching acquisitions, and would rather put resources towards position players where it's a safer "investment". Which requires pitching to come from within and from the scrapheap. And which I think is a wise move, because even with big-time pitching acquisitions you *still* need to find most of your pitching from those sources, and if you don't you can't win anything anyway.

 

That being said, I don't think the new breed of GMs that DS represents are categorical about this. They *will* make big moves for pitching when it makes sense. It just hasn't yet. I would expect to see more moves like Chacin, or like the Charlie Morton contract etc for pitching. And I wouldn't rule out bigger moves either. I think Gerrit Cole is far more likely to end up a Brewer than Darvish, Corbin, Keuchel or Quintana ever were, despite being signficiantly more expensive than any of them. He's still extremely unlikely to be a Brewer, but real quality in a young(ish) player for multiple years is what I think Stearns would be willing to pay for.

 

 

I think this perfectly sums up the situation Stearns is in. Would people consider him to have more "courage" to get a Yu Darvish type starter? Patrick Corbin is a guy I loved, but he was likely never going to sign outside of the North East or at least near there as it had long been discussed his preference to pitch there and he went there.

 

But I agree, for a guy like Cole, I absolutely Believer the Brewers would and could be aggressive in pursuing him and paying the type of money those pitchers get on the open market...which for the record, it seems has actually gone down since the Greinke type deals.

 

So since we've been competitive, the only high priced ace that would fit the criteria that's been laid out would be Corbin. Other than that, it's trades and then you're talking about riding out whatever pitcher you trade for's prime and then going right back into a rebuilding type scenario.

 

Does that seem wise?

[OnTheBlack]

The Brewers aren't going to sign a TOR starter to a 7-year deal worth $200m. I assume that's what he meant. It's either going to be an in-house guy who walks right after arby or a terrible, small market team selling off their in-house guy one year before FA.

 

 

Ok, and I'm saying it's ridiculous to make a definitive statement saying they're "never" going to do that. Even that deal isn't "30+" million. And I actually do believe that if the Brewers could sign Gerritt Cole to a ~6/160 type deal that they would do so.

 

But I'm guessing people would have said with the same level of authority that the Padres were "never" going to sign Hosmer to a 144 million dollar deal and then some guy named Machado.

 

No, I don't suspect the Brewers are just going to go out and throw money at whatever FA pitcher happens to be on the market in a given year...but I think it's absolutely possible, provided there is mutual interest that the Brewers spend 25+ million per year on a 5-6 year deal for a TOR arm.

 

I won't pretend to make any absolute statements about it ever happening though.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think it's about as close to 0 as you can get. They absolutely can't afford that going haywire. They give out that kind of money for an elbow that blows up in year 2 and they are toast. Maybe there is a perfect storm year where they feel one starter away from contention and the market is dry and they can give someone 1-2 years, but I really can't see a blockbuster deal like that going down.

[jerichoholicninja]

The number of teams that have a traded for a pitcher who was a bonafide #1/ACE/stud/top flight pitcher at the time of the trade is pretty slim. Even more so are the guys who were acquired with multiple years of control. These guys are drafted/developed and given brinks trucks in free agency.

[reillymcshane]

Who is the best pitcher that David Stearns has acquired during his time as gm?? What does it say about him as a gm? I'm guessing it's Chacin? I for one don't think Stearns values pitching the way most GM's appear to. There has been a stunning lack of urgency regarding pitching since he has come on board. In fact it's possible it's going to cost them at least one playoff appearance. I compare this to Doug Melvin who isn't considered a pitching first gm. He went all in to acquire both CC Sabathia and Zack Greinke at times when he felt that the on field team was ready to win now and needed a boost on the mound. These acquisitions led to the only two playoff appearance in the Melvin era. Without question the Greinke price was a difficult one to pay but necessary. The contrast to the lack of action in the Stearns era on this front. It can be argued that the teams of the last two years may have been better on the field but lacking in that number one starter area. In fact Greinke was acquired despite the fact that Gallardo was considered a number one type talent. In my opinion Stearns needs to get more heat for the lack of pitching. He still has a week to go but he has shown zero inclination to pull the trigger on the pitching this team needs. Is this just a philosophy or just

a byproduct of an industry that is changing? Thoughts?

I think Stearns non-acquisition of a stud pitcher is a little bit of everything.

 

- He's extremely disciplined, and won't overpay in a trade - or FA. Simple as that. He sets prices on things and walks away when it doesn't work.

- He has budget constraints. I think it's foolish to think we will spend $200M on a roster. If we have the go ahead to do that - and he hasn't - well that's a different story. But as much as I'd love Greinke in the rotation, he probably doesn't have $35M to add to the annual budget over the next couple of years.

- Opportunity has to be there as well. How many 'stud' pitchers have been traded in the past couple of years? How many are available in FA? Not many. Teams know how valuable they are, and they are more aggressive about locking them up longterm.

- You gotta have bullets to shoot the gun. We can't trade for a stud pitcher (or hitter) without offering back a compelling return. Stearns used a lot of ammo to acquire Yelich. Stud pitchers just don't get dealt for fringe Top 100 players. Chris Sale required one of the top prospects in the game (plus another Top 50 guy). Quintana required one of the top 10-20 players in the game to acquire. We don't have that kind of ammunition - unless you want to deal Hiura.

- Acquiring a stud pitcher does not guarantee you success. It's still a 25 man team. We went 'all in' with Sabathia and Greinke - yet we don't have a WS title. It's more than just one guy.

- I feel as if the Brewers have a philosophy that every year they can contend. But due to our lower payroll, that means things have to break our way at times. You need to avoid injuries. You need to have young players step up. You have to hope guys avoid prolonged slumps. It won't always work out. Imagine how different things would be this year if Shaw and Aguilar and Cain were hitting close to what they did last season. We lost Knebel for the year, Jeffress has regressed, and Burnes, who many thought was going to be a very good player - has just imploded. The injuries and slumps this year have been pretty dramatic.

 

In the end, I think Stearns would absolutely love more pitching. And he'd love to have a stud. But circumstances just haven't presented the right opportunity to make such a move.