matt arnold what you want

[Austin Tatious]

Multiple stories about what happened, but it is apparent that something is not right with the situation in NY. Cohen has money, which is appealing, but he’s a loose cannon. He might be turning candidates off. Steinbrenner’s way is not necessary. You can make big moves (e.g., Lindor) sans unnecessary drama. The drama sells newspapers, but they don’t need it as a franchise. Plus, you go there, and you don’t know if you get canned at the whim of he owner. This is what happens to your organization’s reputation when candidates feel that job security will be shaky because the owner demonstrates that he is apt to make abrupt moves.

 

When I initially heard of the Mets’ interest, I suspected that Stearns said he’s not interested but recommended that they take a look at Arnold. I doubt the Brewers simply denied permission. Perhaps they wanted leverage for compensation but not letting him go for an obvious promotion seems counter to the way things work in sports organizations. Stearns’ situation was different; he already has the top job in Milwaukee.

 

The Mets might be trying to save face by letting their local media guys get it out that Milwaukee denied permission. But I bet if Arnold wanted that President job, it could have worked out.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Austin Tatious

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Multiple stories about what happened, but it is apparent that something is not right with the situation in NY. Cohen has money, which is appealing, but he’s a loose cannon. He might be turning candidates off. Steinbrenner’s way is not necessary. You can make big moves (e.g., Lindor) sans unnecessary drama. The drama sells newspapers, but they don’t need it as a franchise. Plus, you go there, abd you don’t know if you get canned at the whim of he owner. This is what happens to your organization’s reputation when candidates feel that job security will be shaky when the owner makes abrupt moves.

 

When I initially heard of the Mets’ interest, I suspected that Stearns said he’s not interested but take a look at Arnold. I doubt the Brewers simply denied permission. Perhaps they wanted leverage for compensation but not letting him go for an obvious promotion seems counter to the way things work in sports organizations. Stearns’ situation was different; he already has the top job in Milwaukee.

 

The Mets might be trying to save face by letting their local media guys get it out that Milwaukee denied permission. But I bet if Arnold wanted that President job, it could have worked out.

 

Is it an obvious promotion though? Sandy Alderson is still there, and Alderson's son is the current assistant GM.

[Austin Tatious]

Multiple stories about what happened, but it is apparent that something is not right with the situation in NY. Cohen has money, which is appealing, but he’s a loose cannon. He might be turning candidates off. Steinbrenner’s way is not necessary. You can make big moves (e.g., Lindor) sans unnecessary drama. The drama sells newspapers, but they don’t need it as a franchise. Plus, you go there, abd you don’t know if you get canned at the whim of he owner. This is what happens to your organization’s reputation when candidates feel that job security will be shaky when the owner makes abrupt moves.

 

When I initially heard of the Mets’ interest, I suspected that Stearns said he’s not interested but take a look at Arnold. I doubt the Brewers simply denied permission. Perhaps they wanted leverage for compensation but not letting him go for an obvious promotion seems counter to the way things work in sports organizations. Stearns’ situation was different; he already has the top job in Milwaukee.

 

The Mets might be trying to save face by letting their local media guys get it out that Milwaukee denied permission. But I bet if Arnold wanted that President job, it could have worked out.

 

Is it an obvious promotion though? Sandy Alderson is still there, and Alderson's son is the current assistant GM.

 

Fair point. I was going off the title of President. But you’re right, Alderson still lingering around is not appealing either.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Multiple stories about what happened, but it is apparent that something is not right with the situation in NY. Cohen has money, which is appealing, but he’s a loose cannon. He might be turning candidates off. Steinbrenner’s way is not necessary. You can make big moves (e.g., Lindor) sans unnecessary drama. The drama sells newspapers, but they don’t need it as a franchise. Plus, you go there, abd you don’t know if you get canned at the whim of he owner. This is what happens to your organization’s reputation when candidates feel that job security will be shaky when the owner makes abrupt moves.

 

When I initially heard of the Mets’ interest, I suspected that Stearns said he’s not interested but take a look at Arnold. I doubt the Brewers simply denied permission. Perhaps they wanted leverage for compensation but not letting him go for an obvious promotion seems counter to the way things work in sports organizations. Stearns’ situation was different; he already has the top job in Milwaukee.

 

The Mets might be trying to save face by letting their local media guys get it out that Milwaukee denied permission. But I bet if Arnold wanted that President job, it could have worked out.

 

Is it an obvious promotion though? Sandy Alderson is still there, and Alderson's son is the current assistant GM.

 

Fair point. I was going off the title of President. But you’re right, Alderson still lingering around is not appealing either.

 

This tweet seems to confirm that point

[Thurston Fluff]

Anyone pining for Doug Melvin over Stearns is nuts. Melvin was good at finding bats but he was a terrible evaluator of pitching and the defense was not stellar under him either. You can do far worse than Melvin but he isn't in the same class as Stearns who is easily a top 5 executive in the game.

 

To be fair Melvin acquired a sizable chunk of the pitching staff we have now. I thought he was a fine GM who did a great job building a respectable organization top to bottom. He is part of the reason the rebuild was so short. Taking over a generally well run organization is far easier than a rudderless ship. That said he never got us where we wanted to be, a perennial contender. I agree with the poster who said he sometimes overpaid for short runs instead of building for long term success. We'd have probably had a better run with the prospects we traded for Greinke than we did with Greinke.

[MrTPlush]

Doug Melvin's co-captain of the ship wasn't an assistant GM...it was the owner. A lot of the reason why we weren't a perennial contender was because Attanasio really didn't allow the team to be ran such a way back then. He said he wanted to compete every year, but he wanted/forced moves to make us one and done 2011. I don't think Doug Melvin was a genius by any means, but he ran a pretty sound organization and gave us quite a parting gift of a situation.

 

David Stearns is a good GM, but the reason people think he is Top 5 is because his owner now (pretty much) sits on the sideline with his mouth shut. A couple dumb ideas by Attanasio would make this a vastly different looking situation. If he had the Attanasio of the Melvin years I don't think we are having anywhere near the success we are having right now, in my opinion.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I would never pine for Melvin over Stearns but Melvin was an amazing GM for the Brewers and did play a huge role in getting them back to respectability. DS took over a club that had enjoyed recent success, yes there were some lean years in there but nothing like the "there is no light at the end of the tunnel" years I endured as a kid. Their tenures were both during really different times for the league too. Really happy we got both guys, but I stop short of mocking what Melvin did to make DS look good.

 

Acquiring CC Sabathia and his run that season is possibly the best time of my life as a Brewers fan...you wanted to see every inning that guy pitched for a summer. And it was a big moment in getting this team to the playoffs, which really felt absolutely insurmountable for me back then.

[patrickgpe]

this probably belongs in its own thread, but its hard to compare the 2, they had different philophosies and levels of success.

 

Melvin went for power hitters, stearns seems to prefer athletes that play in the middle of the diamond. Melvin seemed to prefer larger pitchers with big fastballs, Stearns more "complete" pitchers.

 

Brewers have had unmatched level of success under Stearns. Thats really all that matters. (scoreboard baby).

 

While Melvin was a great GM, picking him over Stearns is a hard argument to make.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think what both of them did has more to do with the trend of the game at the time than what they preferred. Maybe that is what Melvin preferred though, I don't really know. It was also just a pretty different inheritance that each had. Melvin had most of a young core. They drafted Hardy, Hart, Braun, Fielder, Weeks, etc. pretty early on in his time here. By the time most of those guys were MLB players, it made sense to do the big-ticket "over the hump" type of moves that he did. He didn't need to go bargain hunting for offense because he had a roster full of hitters. It is really difficult to bargain hunt FA for playoff pitchers. Not impossible, but difficult. So trading chips away for Sabathia and Greinke does make some sense to me for when he did it.

 

Of course there's Suppan too.

 

Yeah, I think Stearns is a bit more of a pragmatist and better overall. But Doug Melvin deserves a really nice place in Brewers history.

[monty57]

I think what both of them did has more to do with the trend of the game at the time than what they preferred. Maybe that is what Melvin preferred though, I don't really know. It was also just a pretty different inheritance that each had. Melvin had most of a young core. They drafted Hardy, Hart, Braun, Fielder, Weeks, etc. pretty early on in his time here. By the time most of those guys were MLB players, it made sense to do the big-ticket "over the hump" type of moves that he did. He didn't need to go bargain hunting for offense because he had a roster full of hitters. It is really difficult to bargain hunt FA for playoff pitchers. Not impossible, but difficult. So trading chips away for Sabathia and Greinke does make some sense to me for when he did it.

 

Of course there's Suppan too.

 

Yeah, I think Stearns is a bit more of a pragmatist and better overall. But Doug Melvin deserves a really nice place in Brewers history.

 

I remember Melvin saying that he preferred players that graded out really well in one category. I'd guess that Stearns would look more for players who don't grade out poorly in any categories. At least early in his tenure, Melvin talked about wanting to get groups of prospects that would come up around the same time, whereas Stearns has preached "sustainable success."

 

Agree fully with the final sentence. Both of them have brought success to the Brewers, which cannot be said for most of our GMs.

[Jopal78]

I would never pine for Melvin over Stearns but Melvin was an amazing GM for the Brewers and did play a huge role in getting them back to respectability. DS took over a club that had enjoyed recent success, yes there were some lean years in there but nothing like the "there is no light at the end of the tunnel" years I endured as a kid. Their tenures were both during really different times for the league too. Really happy we got both guys, but I stop short of mocking what Melvin did to make DS look good.

 

Acquiring CC Sabathia and his run that season is possibly the best time of my life as a Brewers fan...you wanted to see every inning that guy pitched for a summer. And it was a big moment in getting this team to the playoffs, which really felt absolutely insurmountable for me back then.

 

I don't know if Melvin was an amazing GM, more likely than not he was competent. I think it was profound incompetence of GM Sal Bando and Team President Bud Selig (and to a lesser extent Dean Taylor and Wendy Selig-Prieb) before Melvin, which makes him appear an almost mythical figure in team history.

 

The first mistake was making Bando GM in the first place. He had been the Special Assistant to the GM for 14 years when he got the top job. The actual assistant GM, Bruce Manno was passed over in the process and went to have a long career in the front offices of both St. Louis and Atlanta. Meanwhile, Bando along with Bud took a competitive roster (83 wins in '91 and 92 wins in '92) and drove it into the ground.

 

In the 7 years Bando and Co. were in charge they completely whiffed on most of his first round draft picks (Ken Felder #12 in 1992, Antone Williamson #4 in '94, Chad Green #8 in '96, JM Gold #13 in '98); he also whiffed entirely on the 1996 draft and 1997 drafts with no selections ever seeing significant time in the major leagues. After he was reassigned/fired Bando didn't have another front office job, and last I heard owns a toy doll company in Hartland.

 

Dean Taylor wasn't much better but did draft Corey Hart, JJ Hardy and Prince Fielder. However he left the major league roster in such poor shape, Melvin picked in the Top 5 of the draft his first three years in control.

 

When the bar is set that low it doesn't take much to make him look amazing.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think any GM that gets MKE into the playoffs is pretty good. Picking in the top 5 of an MLB Draft is pretty inconsequential to me. It's not exactly the same as doing that in the NBA and MLB otherwise we wouldn't see a lot of the same awful clubs year in and year out.

[Thurston Fluff]

It isn't just drafting players it's developing them. Melvin started with a depleted farm system in the coaching and scouting department as well as a dearth of talent. He also didn't have the luxury of an even playing field in the international signings. Back then the big market teams could simply buy all the international talent they wanted and there was very little the small market teams could do about it.

Either way I think most agree Melvin was capable of producing good teams in tough environment and left the team in far better shape than he received it.

[monty57]

Dean Taylor wasn't much better but did draft Corey Hart, JJ Hardy and Prince Fielder. However he left the major league roster in such poor shape, Melvin picked in the Top 5 of the draft his first three years in control.

 

I think Taylor was into "tanking" before tanking was cool. He changed the long-running Brewer strategy of disregarding draft picks and using the money they could have spent on the draft to sign meaningless free agents to give fans the impression they were trying to compete. He put the focus on draft and development and dropped the MLB payroll in much the same manner today's "tanking" teams do.

 

He got fired largely over the Hammonds signing https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-dec-23-sp-3830-story.html, but in my mind he really started the ball rolling in the right direction. We had a better farm than we'd had in a long time, and a low payroll which allowed Melvin (under new ownership) to add a significant amount of payroll once the prospects started getting MLB ready.

 

Plus, I believe he brought in Jack Z., who I credit for the string of good draft picks that brought a lot of talent into the system.

[Thurston Fluff]

This is speculation on my part but I always felt Taylor had to try to build a competitive team in a hurry. I don't know if he got the job because he promised it or was told afterward but it seemed pretty apparent to me they wanted a winning team to go with the new stadium ASAP. That at least explains why he traded the few good major league players we had for ready made major league talent (I'm using the term talent loosely here.) That would at least explain trading for player like Jimmy Haynes and Jamey Wright instead of getting higher ceiling minor league talent several years away from contributing.

[Brewcrewin07]

The love for DS here(and quite frankly all over this board) is really something. *EDITED* You'll never get me to say he's NOT a good GM, there's zero doubt he is, I just much preferred the far more aggressive style of Doug Melvin. Now if DS would ever acquire some of that trait...now we're talking.

 

Edit - Please refrain from name calling.

 

His "aggressiveness" left them flailing in limbo, signing over-the-hill "name" players for a few years while sitting around .500 and out of the playoffs until the final collapse, which left Attanasio sitting in an interview with Bill & Brian with a dumbfounded look on his face saying "I don't know what happened, but something has to change." Along came Stearns and after a very short "rebuild/retooling," we've been back in the playoffs for four straight years.

 

Melvin took over a system with a great judge of talent in Jack Z., and some really good prospects in the system. He added some talent and got them a couple of playoff appearances, but he drained the farm in some "go for it" moves that I think cost them more playoff appearances than they made during his tenure. It could be argued that with the prospect talent he inherited and the amount of excess payroll room he had to play with, they should have gotten more playoff berths than they did. Heck, the Royals went to two World Series, winning one of them, with much of the roster being built from Melvin's "aggressive" Greinke trade. He left the team in a mess, and I strongly believe that we would have had a long run of futility if he had stayed on as GM.

 

To his credit, I do think that Attanasio was a different (more hands-on) owner during Melvin's tenure, and in listening to some of Melvin's interviews in his later years, I think there was a disagreement in the direction the organization should take. It's hard to say what, if anything, Melvin would have done differently if he had "today's Attanasio." I am glad that Attanasio had his epiphany, and I think Stearns and his team have done a great job as is evidenced by the team's performance during his time here.

 

It probably sounds like I hate Melvin. I don't. After decades of futility, it was wonderful to see the team become relevant again, and Melvin had a lot to do with that. However, he didn't have as much success in his 13 years at the helm as Stearns has had in half that amount of time.

 

 

So, as I suspected by most posts on Brewerfan.net, the consensus are happy with just making the playoffs. Now, we'll get people like RonRobinson and others coming along to shoot that down immediately, saying "we all want to win the WS". The problem with that is, it doesn't come through that way in the downright giddyness of most fans here when the Brewers simply make the playoffs. Has making the playoffs been fun, sure...but when their season ends before the NLCS, what was really gained. Is that something to really be excited for?? "Ah well, they gave it the old college try, let's go get em again next year". As the great Ron Wolf once said "we were nothing more than a fart in the wind".

 

I mean, sure, different sport, different system, but same basic principal applies..does anyone need to look any further than to Green Bay to see what eventually happens when you have a "passive" GM?? You get star players that are upset, and with good reason. You have three young stud pitchers under control...the window keeps shrinking every year that goes by...I mean, if not now(as far as being really bold and aggressive), then when?? I suspect that if Melvin were still GM, he would have been far more aggressive at the trade deadline as far as getting big bats than Stearns has been. He wouldn't have been afraid to deal Turang, or Small or Mitchell to go get someone(s), he thought might put them over the top. Sure, it may not have worked, but that's the chance you take for a shot at greatness.

 

You think about the prospects Melvin traded to get some of the bigger name guys he did, did any of them really go on to be anything special?? A couple...maybe. I've said it before on this board but "scared money don't make money". There's going to be risks involved without a doubt, but that's the price you sometimes pay for a shot at immortality and to reach the top of the mountain. But I know this...the way Stearns has built his offenses the last couple years is never going to work, I knew that starting last year and told anyone that would listen it wouldn't. It hasn't. So you can either keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results and keep using "hope" as your main strategy, or...you can roll the dice, let it rip and take your chances. I know how I'd rather live.

[sveumrules]

but when their season ends before the NLCS, what was really gained. Is that something to really be excited for??

 

By having their season end in the NLDS the Brewers gained more than 22 other teams (12 of which had higher opening payrolls for whatever that is or isn't worth), gained about the same as 3 other teams & gained less than 4 teams.

 

There's certainly a lot more room for downward mobility that there is for upward mobility.

[sveumrules]

You think about the prospects Melvin traded to get some of the bigger name guys he did, did any of them really go on to be anything special?? A couple...maybe.

 

Brantley put up 17.8 WAR over his years of team control with Cleveland, Cain put up 24.7 WAR over his year of team control with KC & was the best player on two World Series teams.

 

That's quite a bit to give up for 4.9 WAR of Sabathia & 3.6 WAR of Greinke.

 

Short term wins? Sure, but even bigger long term losses.

[adambr2]

I wish there was a way to ensure that our playoffs are a success and we continue on to not only the NLCS, but the World Series.

 

Unfortunately, there just isn't a way to ensure that.

 

If it was just as simple and easy as "spend more money" than the Yankees wouldn't have headed home before we did.

[Brewcrewin07]

but when their season ends before the NLCS, what was really gained. Is that something to really be excited for??

 

By having their season end in the NLDS the Brewers gained more than 22 other teams (12 of which had higher opening payrolls for whatever that is or isn't worth), gained about the same as 3 other teams & gained less than 4 teams.

 

There's certainly a lot more room for downward mobility that there is for upward mobility.

 

So this is reason to celebrate?? That the Brewers gained more than 22 other teams, 12 of which had a higher payroll?? THAT'S what we celebrate around here?? I always love how people use the "compared to this team or that team" no matter the sport. Who gives a crap what other teams did or didn't do?? It has ZERO relevance on what the team you root for did. I personally think it's used by sports fans as a crutch when their team doesn't reach the ultimate goal as a way of saying "ah hell, it could have been much worse, look what team A did". Instead the proper way to look at it SHOULD be...the brewers are at home with those other 22 teams right now, and that's the bottom line. No different if the Packers lose the NFC championship game...so what, they made it to the NFC championship game, and you know what, they were at home watching the Super Bowl along with 29 other teams who's season just happened to end sooner than theirs did, but they all ended up in the same place in the end, didn't they??

[sveumrules]

Who gives a crap what other teams did or didn't do??

 

There is literally no other way to judge the success or failure of one team in a thirty team league without comparing them to the other twenty nine teams in that league.

[Brewcrewin07]

I wish there was a way to ensure that our playoffs are a success and we continue on to not only the NLCS, but the World Series.

 

Unfortunately, there just isn't a way to ensure that.

 

If it was just as simple and easy as "spend more money" than the Yankees wouldn't have headed home before we did.

 

Sure, it's not that easy, everyone knows that. But in any walk of life, whether it's business, sports, whatever it is, isn't the idea to maximize your opportunity when it presents itself and put yourself in the BEST possible position to be the best in the end?? You invest in the opportunity to be great, not the guarantee you will be(there is no guarantee). It can only go one of two ways...it will either work, or it won't. It's that simple. But I can tell you this, when you DON'T do everything that you possibly can to even put yourself in that position, the opportunity to be the best, the odds that you'll become the best in the end are...minimal at best.

[Thurston Fluff]

I wish there was a way to ensure that our playoffs are a success and we continue on to not only the NLCS, but the World Series.

 

Unfortunately, there just isn't a way to ensure that.

 

If it was just as simple and easy as "spend more money" than the Yankees wouldn't have headed home before we did.

 

Sure, it's not that easy, everyone knows that. But in any walk of life, whether it's business, sports, whatever it is, isn't the idea to maximize your opportunity when it presents itself and put yourself in the BEST possible position to be the best in the end?? You invest in the opportunity to be great, not the guarantee you will be(there is no guarantee). It can only go one of two ways...it will either work, or it won't. It's that simple. But I can tell you this, when you DON'T do everything that you possibly can to even put yourself in that position, the opportunity to be the best, the odds that you'll become the best in the end are...minimal at best.

 

When you put all your eggs in one basket you have one shot. If it fails you now have zero eggs going forward. Given the rather unpredictable nature of the playoffs where the best teams do not usually win it all it seems silly to go all in every chance one gets. We've seen both ways in the past couple decades when the team had legitimate playoff hopes. One was all in and it got us two playoff appearances and no WS in eight years. The other four playoff appearances and no WS in five years. The difference is one way meant no chance in the near future while the other offered hope for next year. It doesn't take much see the 2022 version of the Brewers looks a lot more promising than the 2008 or 2012 Brewers to see how the different strategies worked out.

[Austin Tatious]

I respect Doug and he did a lot to transition us from a loser’s, defeatist mentality, instituted by Bud, who had an agenda to inculcate the fan base with the notion that we couldn’t truly compete as a small market club.

 

But Stearns has brought total, next level thinking. Stearns’ stated goal is to develop balance in the organization so that we will stay competitive, year in year out. Bud tried to convince us that wasn’t possible, and Doug thought you have bursts for going for it.

 

Stearns has changed the philosophy of the organization. It’s not just player acquisition. It’s the pitching lab, the load management of the pitchers, the type of players he looks for, including analytics, bringing in Tod Johnson for the draft, cleaning up the affiliate relationships, driving a hard bargain in trades, upgrading our Latin scouting, relationships, and acquisitions, etc.

 

Not every move has been perfect, but that’s noise. The bigger picture is an overhaul of the way the organization is being run from soup to nuts. Stearns is a very bright guy, and a high level thinker. We are damn lucky to have him.

[owbc]

I wish there was a way to ensure that our playoffs are a success and we continue on to not only the NLCS, but the World Series.

 

Unfortunately, there just isn't a way to ensure that.

 

If it was just as simple and easy as "spend more money" than the Yankees wouldn't have headed home before we did.

 

Sure, it's not that easy, everyone knows that. But in any walk of life, whether it's business, sports, whatever it is, isn't the idea to maximize your opportunity when it presents itself and put yourself in the BEST possible position to be the best in the end?? You invest in the opportunity to be great, not the guarantee you will be(there is no guarantee). It can only go one of two ways...it will either work, or it won't. It's that simple. But I can tell you this, when you DON'T do everything that you possibly can to even put yourself in that position, the opportunity to be the best, the odds that you'll become the best in the end are...minimal at best.

 

How is what you are describing different from the way the Brewers currently operate? This is literally their plan. They are the most opportunistic team in MLB. They have gone against the mold more often than not with generally successful results.

 

Your beef starts and ends with the amount of money that Mark Attanasio is willing to spend. That's a completely separate topic from what's being done from Stearns/Arnold and down.