Has anyone lost confidence in Stearns

[MrTPlush]

If we're noting that Stearns has found some gems that lost their luster fairly quickly, I think it's also worth giving him credit for not stupidly committing a large amount of resources to those people as previous regimes did. Rather than giving a guy like Shaw a monster deal, they were able to move on without a franchise-crippling financial albatross hanging over them.

 

Sure, high turnover isn’t exactly great...but it probably beats signing them to stick around to be poor mainstays. Much of the guys we have lost haven’t exactly lit the world on fire elsewhere. Miley was good last year and letting Gennett go looked to be a pretty poor move. I don’t have much problem letting many of these guys walk. A good majority of the time it ends up not working out very well.

[monty57]

Stearns has done a remarkable job in his time here...I doubt we could have hired someone to get better results in this same timespan. That being said we still don’t know how well he will do building a farm system, which is arguably the most important thing he will ever do to find success in Milwaukee. The system isn’t great right now and the roster turnover the last few years is certainly concerning. It’s a sign we are not developing or finding controllable players...certainly not a recipe for success.

 

I don’t say all of this to mean I think he hasn’t done a good job...I just don’t think the real test as a GM has been seen yet.

 

I agree the minor leagues are more important to small market franchises than they are to larger markets, and I share the concern mentioned in this thread about the current state of the farm.

 

One difference I see with Stearns and Melvin is that while both have traded pieces from the farm for major league help, Stearns seems much more concerned about finding controllable assets in trade, while Melvin looked for shorter-term fixes. They may not look as sexy as picking up a Grienke or Sabathia, but getting a MLB player for 4-6 years is meaningful. A lot can happen to a farm in 4-6 years, so by the time someone like Urias starts getting expensive, we will have a significantly different system than we have today.

 

As our current MLB roster is built, we have quite a few positions (including most of our pitching) that could be around for a long time. That eases my concern over the strength of our upper-level farm teams.

[Jopal78]

Stearns has done a remarkable job in his time here...I doubt we could have hired someone to get better results in this same timespan. That being said we still don’t know how well he will do building a farm system, which is arguably the most important thing he will ever do to find success in Milwaukee. The system isn’t great right now and the roster turnover the last few years is certainly concerning. It’s a sign we are not developing or finding controllable players...certainly not a recipe for success.

 

I don’t say all of this to mean I think he hasn’t done a good job...I just don’t think the real test as a GM has been seen yet.

 

I agree the minor leagues are more important to small market franchises than they are to larger markets, and I share the concern mentioned in this thread about the current state of the farm.

 

One difference I see with Stearns and Melvin is that while both have traded pieces from the farm for major league help, Stearns seems much more concerned about finding controllable assets in trade, while Melvin looked for shorter-term fixes. They may not look as sexy as picking up a Grienke or Sabathia, but getting a MLB player for 4-6 years is meaningful. A lot can happen to a farm in 4-6 years, so by the time someone like Urias starts getting expensive, we will have a significantly different system than we have today.

 

As our current MLB roster is built, we have quite a few positions (including most of our pitching) that could be around for a long time. That eases my concern over the strength of our upper-level farm teams.

 

 

Right, but they also traded five years of control of Trent Grisham to get Urias. As well as giving up the better pitcher in Zach Davies to get Eric Lauer and his 5 years of control

[CheezWizHed]

Right, but they also traded five years of control of Trent Grisham to get five years of control of Urias. As well as giving up the better pitcher in Zach Davies to get Eric Lauer and his 5 years of control

 

Fixed.

 

I'll grant you that Davies is the better pitcher today, but that answer will take 5 years to see who actually got the better deal.

[monty57]

Stearns has done a remarkable job in his time here...I doubt we could have hired someone to get better results in this same timespan. That being said we still don’t know how well he will do building a farm system, which is arguably the most important thing he will ever do to find success in Milwaukee. The system isn’t great right now and the roster turnover the last few years is certainly concerning. It’s a sign we are not developing or finding controllable players...certainly not a recipe for success.

 

I don’t say all of this to mean I think he hasn’t done a good job...I just don’t think the real test as a GM has been seen yet.

 

I agree the minor leagues are more important to small market franchises than they are to larger markets, and I share the concern mentioned in this thread about the current state of the farm.

 

One difference I see with Stearns and Melvin is that while both have traded pieces from the farm for major league help, Stearns seems much more concerned about finding controllable assets in trade, while Melvin looked for shorter-term fixes. They may not look as sexy as picking up a Grienke or Sabathia, but getting a MLB player for 4-6 years is meaningful. A lot can happen to a farm in 4-6 years, so by the time someone like Urias starts getting expensive, we will have a significantly different system than we have today.

 

As our current MLB roster is built, we have quite a few positions (including most of our pitching) that could be around for a long time. That eases my concern over the strength of our upper-level farm teams.

 

 

Right, but they also traded five years of control of Trent Grisham to get Urias. As well as giving up the better pitcher in Zach Davies to get Eric Lauer and his 5 years of control

 

I know. I was talking about trading away prospects. Look at how many years of service time Melvin gave up to get half a year of Sabathia and 2 years of Greinke. Acquiring service time seems to be more of a concern for Stearns than it was for Melvin.

 

Just my opinion, but it seems like it will be easier to keep a good "core" if your better players are around for 4+ years than it is when your better players are only here for a short stint. A complaint against Melvin was that he used his trade chips to "patch holes" for a year and tried to get "core" players in free agency. That led to an old, expensive team struggling to reach .500, with little financial flexibility. Stearns seems to like "patching holes" with one-year free agent deals, while using his trade chips to bring in "core" players. We'll never be able to fill our roster with good free agents, so Stearns' strategy seems to me to be a better one for a small market to remain sustainably good for an extended period.

 

I put some of this on Attanasio, who said that he liked players who had recognizable names. I think Attanasio has changed over the years, and isn't as "hands on" as he used to be, so Stearns probably gets a lot more freedom than Melvin ever had.

 

Everyone will look at things differently, but I really like how Stearns is building the franchise, and I haven't lost any faith in him.

[HiAndTight]

 

I know. I was talking about trading away prospects. Look at how many years of service time Melvin gave up to get half a year of Sabathia and 2 years of Greinke. Acquiring service time seems to be more of a concern for Stearns than it was for Melvin.

 

Just my opinion, but it seems like it will be easier to keep a good "core" if your better players are around for 4+ years than it is when your better players are only here for a short stint. A complaint against Melvin was that he used his trade chips to "patch holes" for a year and tried to get "core" players in free agency. That led to an old, expensive team struggling to reach .500, with little financial flexibility. Stearns seems to like "patching holes" with one-year free agent deals, while using his trade chips to bring in "core" players. We'll never be able to fill our roster with good free agents, so Stearns' strategy seems to me to be a better one for a small market to remain sustainably good for an extended period.

 

I put some of this on Attanasio, who said that he liked players who had recognizable names. I think Attanasio has changed over the years, and isn't as "hands on" as he used to be, so Stearns probably gets a lot more freedom than Melvin ever had.

 

Everyone will look at things differently, but I really like how Stearns is building the franchise, and I haven't lost any faith in him.

 

 

I think you make a great point. While both of those trades worked out...and Stearns himself may have even entertained the notion were he in the same situation(a team that hadn't made the post-season in 25 years), I was one of the few people who was actually hoping they'd trade for Greinke INSTEAD of CC at the time of that trade.

 

Greinke was reportedly on the market and he likely would have cost less. The Brewers are unlikely to find themselves in a situation in the near future where it'd make sense to go all in and make a trade of ~Turang, Mitchell and say...Small or another top 10 prospect for an ace pitcher. That ONLY makes sense to me when you're a dominant team like the Dodgers for example and you're so good everywhere except this one spot.

 

The Brewers have been a pretty well balanced team the last few years, so if we're going to give up prospects, I'd MUCH rather acquire someone who is still young and we have him for 3-4 years even if that player doesn't have the massive upside other potential trade targets do.

 

2008 Grienke vs 2008 CC. Greinke wasn't as good of a pitcher obviously(though he would be the following year, you couldn't know that at the time).

 

But with how much luck and fluke is involved in baseball, 4 years of that very good pitcher who still has quite a bit of upside is preferable to that dominant starter for 3 months.

 

 

I do wonder what Stearns would have done at the time. It's kinda forgotten right now, but there were people talking about how our AA team that year was one of the most prospect laden teams that some baseball people had ever seen. Angel Solome looked like a little pudge hitting in the high .300's that year, LaPorta was obviously crushing it,

Mat Gamel looked like an absolute monster and many thought he'd be a .300 30 HR 3rd basemen for us.

Alcides Escobar was hit ~.330 that year...and his defense was NEVER in doubt;

Cole Gillespie and Brantley were BOTH having big years and well regarded;

I THINK Cain was even on that team....though I may be wrong on that. I just remember we were LOADED. We had good OF'ers who had to rotate due to the depth we had, we had Gamel, Escobar, LaPorta...probably someone like Hernan at 2nd base and Salome behind the dish.

 

 

So while I started to point this out to agree with you, it's also a good reminder that just because fans or even scouting outlets rank a teams system...at some point you have to decide if you trust your GM. Our GM has traded away minor leaguers when their value was at or near it's peak...like with Grisham and we've gotten plaeyrs back when their values weren't necessarily as high(Urias...a top 20 prospect heading to last year).

 

 

So I'd definitely like to see more guys ranked in the top 100 and to hear about all the talent we have, as long as every year we're able to produce a couple guys who can be legitimate difference makers like Drew Rassmussen appears he can be and other guys just keep moving up the ladder like a Brice Turang(my personal favorite and a player who I think is going to compare to Trea Turner in 2-3 years) I'm fine.

 

Hopefully while that's happening, we have guys who are busting out and really exceeding expectations from our investments in Latin America and guys like Felliciano go from being solid prospects to ELITE prospects.

 

Either way, I would NOT describe any facet of this organization as being "in shambles."

[brewers888]

Stearns probably did not go from genius to incompetent overnight but its time to just say he had a terrible offseason and needs to do better going forward.

[HiAndTight]

Stearns probably did not go from genius to incompetent overnight but its time to just say he had a terrible offseason and needs to do better going forward.

 

 

I think it's even fairer to say you're going to be posting on this thread whenever the Brewers have a bad loss or a couple of losses in a row. What's REALLY shocking is you made this exact thread again after last year.

[pacopete4]

Yeah, he won't own up to that it backfired on him a season ago. Never will. He doubled down on it this year and my guess is he hopes that he can continue bringing this thread back to life. For whatever reason, we get these weird types of posters here often that almost want the Brewers to be bad so they can say, see told you so. It's odd.

[pacopete4]

For as good of a reputation as David Stearns has we are almost halfway through the season and his offseason acquisitions have been almost universal failures across the board.

 

Lindblom

Narvaez

Holt

Smoak

Sogard

Morrison, have all been spectacular failures.

 

Garcia has been about the best of the bunch and he hasn't been good.

 

The only saving grace is we aren't really on the hook for these guys long term. Try again next offseason and hope for the best.

 

I'll bring this here. Stearns had a great approach to the offseason. It hasn't worked out the way anyone wanted (well other than maybe one poster) but there wasn't much on the market so he went for bulk. We aren't straddled to any long contracts out of this mess we are witnessing and we have younger-controllable players to build around moving forward.

[brewers888]

For as good of a reputation as David Stearns has we are almost halfway through the season and his offseason acquisitions have been almost universal failures across the board.

 

Lindblom

Narvaez

Holt

Smoak

Sogard

Morrison, have all been spectacular failures.

 

Garcia has been about the best of the bunch and he hasn't been good.

 

The only saving grace is we aren't really on the hook for these guys long term. Try again next offseason and hope for the best.

 

I'll bring this here. Stearns had a great approach to the offseason. It hasn't worked out the way anyone wanted (well other than maybe one poster) but there wasn't much on the market so he went for bulk. We aren't straddled to any long contracts out of this mess we are witnessing and we have younger-controllable players to build around moving forward.

 

How is signing a bunch of terrible players to start a great approach to the offseason. I liked the Holt and Gyorko signings as well as the Urias deal but there were some moves that never made any sense such as signing Sogard, Smoak, or Garcia for that matter.

 

Stearns has mostly done a fantastic job since taking over as the GM and I think he can do it again but why can't people just say he whiffed last offseason. Blame definitely needs to be placed on Attanasio as well for lowering payroll but we had a bad offseason. This doesn't mean that Stearns should be fired but it is more than fair to criticize the moves that were made before this season.

[JohnBriggs12]

Stearns probably did not go from genius to incompetent overnight but its time to just say he had a terrible offseason and needs to do better going forward.

 

I'd agree with that statement, but I also question the philosophy of thinking you can turn over more than half the roster and expect any type of team cohesiveness between a bunch of strangers. Yeah the pandemic didn't help and losing in front of empty stadiums is depressing but I get the feeling that most guys are just collecting paychecks.

[trwi7]

It hasn't worked out the way anyone wanted (well other than maybe one poster) but there wasn't much on the market so he went for bulk.

 

This was like the best free agent class in terms of quality and depth in years. There's never much on the market if you think there wasn't much on the market last winter.

[pacopete4]

It hasn't worked out the way anyone wanted (well other than maybe one poster) but there wasn't much on the market so he went for bulk.

 

This was like the best free agent class in terms of quality and depth in years. There's never much on the market if you think there wasn't much on the market last winter.

 

They weren’t going multiple years on guys into their 30’s so who on the FA side should they have signed? Because Moose and Grandal weren’t happening.

[trwi7]

It hasn't worked out the way anyone wanted (well other than maybe one poster) but there wasn't much on the market so he went for bulk.

 

This was like the best free agent class in terms of quality and depth in years. There's never much on the market if you think there wasn't much on the market last winter.

 

They weren’t going multiple years on guys into their 30’s so who on the FA side should they have signed? Because Moose and Grandal weren’t happening.

 

That's fine but it was a deep and quality class. If you're not going after anybody in that class because "there wasn't much on the market", you just aren't ever going to be a player in free agency.

[pacopete4]

Things have to lineup. You don’t hand Yelich the bank if you’re signing 3-4 other players. It’s not Monopoly money.

[trwi7]

Things have to lineup. You don’t hand Yelich the bank if you’re signing 3-4 other players. It’s not Monopoly money.

 

Yelich's new money doesn't kick in until 2022. If they weren't spending this winter because of that and that's a dubious claim to begin with because Yelich didn't sign until March and there was no guarantee that any extension would be reached, they're not going to spend anything for the rest of the decade.

[rickh150]

Things have to lineup. You don’t hand Yelich the bank if you’re signing 3-4 other players. It’s not Monopoly money.

 

The club option (1+) to a few FA guys was a rather underrated move, IMO. Bring back who we want in 2021 and get rid of the those that didn't do well. In the mean time, they can build/trade to fill holes.

[adambr2]

Things have to lineup. You don’t hand Yelich the bank if you’re signing 3-4 other players. It’s not Monopoly money.

 

The club option (1+) to a few FA guys was a rather underrated move, IMO. Bring back who we want in 2021 and get rid of the those that didn't do well. In the mean time, they can build/trade to fill holes.

 

I appreciated the strategy behind the club options when they happened, but very few if any look like they're actually going to be exercised.

[Eye Black]

I still haven’t lost confidence, but I didn’t have a good alternative place to post this... currently in the 7th inning versus the Astros, Trent Grisham just hit his 3rd home run of the night (and 4th hit of the game). He now has 7 home runs on the season.

 

Also, Zach Davies is now pitching into the 8th inning and still has under 100 pitches.

[trwi7]

I still haven’t lost confidence, but I didn’t have a good alternative place to post this... currently in the 7th inning versus the Astros, Trent Grisham just hit his 3rd home run of the night (and 4th hit of the game). He now has 7 home runs on the season.

 

Also, Zach Davies is now pitching into the 8th inning and still has under 100 pitches.

 

To be fair Eric Lauer also probably pitched 8 innings with under 100 pitches in a simulated game at the alternate site at some point in the past week.

[adambr2]

I still haven’t lost confidence, but I didn’t have a good alternative place to post this... currently in the 7th inning versus the Astros, Trent Grisham just hit his 3rd home run of the night (and 4th hit of the game). He now has 7 home runs on the season.

 

Also, Zach Davies is now pitching into the 8th inning and still has under 100 pitches.

 

Grisham may be sorely, sorely missed.

 

It wasn't long ago when we had outstanding outfield depth on this team. Now the future of our outfield is Christian Yelich, ??, and ??

[pacopete4]

I still haven’t lost confidence, but I didn’t have a good alternative place to post this... currently in the 7th inning versus the Astros, Trent Grisham just hit his 3rd home run of the night (and 4th hit of the game). He now has 7 home runs on the season.

 

Also, Zach Davies is now pitching into the 8th inning and still has under 100 pitches.

 

Grisham may be sorely, sorely missed.

 

It wasn't long ago when we had outstanding outfield depth on this team. Now the future of our outfield is Christian Yelich, ??, and ??

 

Don’t forget Braun. Ryan Braun.

[mtrebs]

I’m hoping Attanasio and Stearns make up for this last off-season buy signing some decent players this coming off-season (vs. multiple journeyman-type players, hoping they all match their career-best output). They don’t have to be top-tier players, but you can’t have a regular roster with so many of these guys. It probably won’t happen as they’ll cite limited budget due to COVID, but somehow other teams will be able to sign these guys. It’s just so frustrating.

[brewers888]

I’m hoping Attanasio and Stearns make up for this last off-season buy signing some decent players this coming off-season (vs. multiple journeyman-type players, hoping they all match their career-best output). They don’t have to be top-tier players, but you can’t have a regular roster with so many of these guys. It probably won’t happen as they’ll cite limited budget due to COVID, but somehow other teams will be able to sign these guys. It’s just so frustrating.

 

No team has been more hurt without the gate revenue than the Brewers. Attanasio lowered payroll last offseason with the expectation of filling the ballpark and without that revenue I expect payroll to stay at current levels or go down again. This is why the lack of position player talent in our system hurts so much.