matt arnold what you want

[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.

 

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.

 

I'm sure I will get push back on this, But I just have a feeling Mark A would be willing to spend more, but DS, always thinking he's the smartest man in the room, is being more frugal then necessary. That would totally fit his personality. Of course I have no proof of this, other than a strong hunch

[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.

 

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.

 

No, I disagree, I don't think they do everything they possibly can to put themselves in the best position to win a title. Is some of it about spending more, yes...sure, of course it is. But that's not the only thing it's about. For example(and this is just one example), they still have all their top prospects. DS seems extremely hesitant to trade any of them, let alone emptying the farm, I'm not necessarily saying he should empty the farm, but let's be honest, trading top prospects(for major league pieces) theoretically puts you in a better position for the current year that you do it in. I think that's indisputable. Again, it's not guaranteed to work, but I think it does at least on the surface "maximize" or takes a step towards minimizing the need for "everything to go right", in order to win a WS.

[adambr2]

So you literally think that Mark A offers to open up his wallet and spend on players and Stearns says "heck no Mark, I care about saving you money, we're going to do this on my budget."

[markedman5]

Brewers lose Tim McIlvaine

 

[DuWayne Steurer]

Attanasio literally spoke about running in the red in 18 - 19 (and obviously in 20, due to no ticket revenue) and how they would have to course correct for that with cuts, but I guess we can all believe what we want to believe.

 

I have no doubt that Attanasio wants to win a world series. No doubt. I have even less doubt that he wants to not lose money to do it.

[TURBO]

 

I'm sure I will get push back on this, But I just have a feeling Mark A would be willing to spend more, but DS, always thinking he's the smartest man in the room, is being more frugal then necessary. That would totally fit his personality. Of course I have no proof of this, other than a strong hunch

 

It seems you are willing to use any angle, ANY angle, to prove your backwards point.

 

Dude, just take a look at what you just typed...

 

You are saying that MA is willing to give Stearns more money to work with, but out of pure ego, Stearns turns it down?

 

Seriously?

 

I've seen some crazy comments on these boards, but this one is right up there with the craziest of all time.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

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.

 

I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense to me. Yes I want the Brewers to win a World Series. I crave it. But I'm also concurrently happy having a perennial playoff contender. I'm 41 years old, and for the vast majority of my life as a Brewer fan, the team has been crap. They've been embarrassing. So I'm damn right going to be happy having a team that the vast majority of other MLB teams are jealous of. It is entirely possible to both enjoy the ride, and also enjoy the destination. Baseball is awesome like that. We have 162 chances (more if you count Spring Training games) to sit back and watch the greatest sport in the world. I love watching good baseball, and for the last 5 years, this team has provided that. They also had a nice stretch around 10-15 years ago as well. I value that. So yes, I want this team to remain competitive. I would love a World Series win, but having to endure a decade of losing would suck. I've been there. I don't want to go back.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

I'm sure I will get push back on this, But I just have a feeling Mark A would be willing to spend more, but DS, always thinking he's the smartest man in the room, is being more frugal then necessary. That would totally fit his personality. Of course I have no proof of this, other than a strong hunch

 

It seems you are willing to use any angle, ANY angle, to prove your backwards point.

 

Dude, just take a look at what you just typed...

 

You are saying that MA is willing to give Stearns more money to work with, but out of pure ego, Stearns turns it down?

 

Seriously?

 

I've seen some crazy comments on these boards, but this one is right up there with the craziest of all time.

 

Are you sure? That would fit Stearns's personality - something Brewcrewin07 really has a tight handle on.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

There was a very interesting historical discussion going on, with about as good of insight being shared as I ever see here anymore and one guy comes in picking a fight. Poof - interesting discussion gone.

[TURBO]

If I was being 100% honest with myself, and was given the choice of winning a World Series, then a decade of suckiness OR being competitive, going to the playoffs every year for the next decade and not winning the World Series, I'd take the World Series win.

 

My NFL team has now won it twice. There were a lot of lean years between the first time they won it and the next, but I wouldn't change a single thing if it meant getting to feel that feeling of my team being World Champions. (I wasn't as invested the second time though for a few different reasons, but nothing, I mean nothing compares to that first time) I desperately want the Brewers to win one in my lifetime, and I do realize that the odds are against me...

[StearnsFTW]

So you literally think that Mark A offers to open up his wallet and spend on players and Stearns says "heck no Mark, I care about saving you money, we're going to do this on my budget."

 

Right?

 

I have a "strong hunch" that that's a terrible theory.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

If I was being 100% honest with myself, and was given the choice of winning a World Series, then a decade of suckiness OR being competitive, going to the playoffs every year for the next decade and not winning the World Series, I'd take the World Series win.

 

My NFL team has now won it twice. There were a lot of lean years between the first time they won it and the next, but I wouldn't change a single thing if it meant getting to feel that feeling of my team being World Champions. (I wasn't as invested the second time though for a few different reasons, but nothing, I mean nothing compares to that first time) I desperately want the Brewers to win one in my lifetime, and I do realize that the odds are against me...

 

I get it. I want one too. More than you can imagine.

 

But either way, I'm still going to be a diehard Brewer fan. So in that case, it would definitely be much more fun (at least to me) to cheer for a contending team over the next decade, than to cheer one who sells the farm for what is still a non-guaranteed championship shot, then is terrible after that 1-2 year window shuts.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that it is completely plausible to both want a perennial playoff team and a Championship. I don't believe that selling the farm for an "all in" run is the magic elixir that is going to automatically bring this franchise a title.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Ron Robinson's Beard

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If I was being 100% honest with myself, and was given the choice of winning a World Series, then a decade of suckiness OR being competitive, going to the playoffs every year for the next decade and not winning the World Series, I'd take the World Series win.

 

The problem with this way of thinking is that having some magical guaranteed title sucks away the whole purpose of the pursuit. If I went into 2025 knowing we win the World Series, well that makes the season pretty boring to me. The whole rush of being a fan or playing a sport is the possibility that you lose, otherwise I'd just play basketball with 6 year olds every weekend. Without losing on the table, there is nothing to win.

 

So the question of would you take one guaranteed title or a decade of playoff losses is just inherently flawed. The only real angle for that question is would you rather tank and commit to one season every decade or try to be sustainably competitive? And I strongly prefer the latter.

 

When you're knocking on the door and not winning titles everyone easily forgets how lifeless it is to watch a team that loses all the time. It's really not fun. It's not fun to look into the next 10 years and know you're eliminated on May 15. But the agony of getting really close makes most people gloss over that.

[sveumrules]

If I was being 100% honest with myself, and was given the choice of winning a World Series, then a decade of suckiness OR being competitive, going to the playoffs every year for the next decade and not winning the World Series, I'd take the World Series win.

 

You're pretty much describing the Royals fan experience with the first scenario.

 

Over the 15 seasons Dayton Moore has been at the helm they've won the 28th most games (1,067) in MLB, with only MIA & BAL winning fewer games. They won a World Series, they lost a World Series & they had 13 seasons of complete & total irrelevance.

 

Over those same 15 seasons the Brewers have won the 9th most games (1,201) in MLB. They've gone to the playoffs six times, but never reached the World Series.

 

As much as I'd love to see the Brewers go to or heck even win a World Series, I wouldn't trade the last 15 years of Brewers fandom to be a Royals fan over that same stretch. The 13 years of having your summer be over before the All Star Break outweighs the two World Series summers for me.

[SeaBass]

I do think there's something to be said for getting that 1st championship. I would trade having to endure some down seasons for that 1st one, we've lived through it before. Thing is we don't have the Seligs anymore, this team under MA hasn't shown itself to settle for less than being legitimately competitive, at least not to me.

 

Also, you can't get to a World Series without being in the playoffs. It's simple fact. Complaining about "settling for playoff appearances" is losers mentality, especially in baseball. When you make the playoffs in baseball you always have a chance to get to the World Series. It's happened time and time again, just not to us yet. Here we are with the Braves in there, they had the worst record of any playoff team going in and nobody was picking them to make it this far. Keep getting to the playoffs and I really think the Brewers will eventually break through.

[sveumrules]

Here's a list of World Series winners over the last fifteen years with playoff appearances and regular season wins also included. If ATL wins this year they would join the list at 1 WS | 7 PO | 1,208 W (8th), if HOU wins they would join BOS & SFG as the only teams on the list with multiple World Series wins...

 

BOS: 3 WS | 8 PO | 1,274 W (4th)

SFG: 3 WS | 5 PO | 1,188 W (10th)

LAD: 1 WS | 11 PO | 1,332 W (1st)

NYY: 1 WS | 11 PO | 1,329 W (2nd)

STL: 1 WS | 9 PO | 1,274 W (3rd)

CHC: 1 WS | 7 PO | 1,187 W (12th)

HOU: 1 WS | 6 PO | 1,146 W (17th)

PHI: 1 WS | 5 PO | 1,171 W (14th)

WAS: 1 WS | 5 PO | 1,161 W (15th)

KCR: 1 WS | 2 PO | 1,067 W (28th)

 

Looking at the list the most obvious takeaway to me is that winning the World Series is INCREDIBLY HARD, mostly because the postseason is susceptible to large degrees of randomness.

 

If it weren't, the Dodgers & Yankees who have spent however many billions on payroll, and the Cardinals who have some sort of Devil Magick, would have more than one World Series each to go along with their 31 combined playoff appearances as the winningest teams of the last 15 years.

 

But even looking at a list of World Series winners, I still see a lot of heart break. The Royals with 13 years of irrelevance around their blip, the Nationals whole thing falling apart almost immediately after winning it all, the Phillies spending however many billions to not even make the playoffs anymore, the Astros success tainted by banging on a garbage can, the Cubs "dynasty" crumbled largely at the hands of the Brewers, all the sad STL/NYY/LAD fans in those 28 postseasons that didn't end in a World Series win, so what was really gained?

 

If the game was indeed designed to break your heart like Giamatti said, you better learn to love heart break.

[Thurston Fluff]

If I was being 100% honest with myself, and was given the choice of winning a World Series, then a decade of suckiness OR being competitive, going to the playoffs every year for the next decade and not winning the World Series, I'd take the World Series win.

 

My NFL team has now won it twice. There were a lot of lean years between the first time they won it and the next, but I wouldn't change a single thing if it meant getting to feel that feeling of my team being World Champions. (I wasn't as invested the second time though for a few different reasons, but nothing, I mean nothing compares to that first time) I desperately want the Brewers to win one in my lifetime, and I do realize that the odds are against me...

 

 

While I get your sentiment I think the premise is wrong. The problem with that hypothetical is there is never a guarantee of winning one. By using that hypothetical the real question gets lost. The real question is how much does going all in change the odds of winning it all? I don't believe trading all your top prospects changes the odds very much. Houston traded for Randy Johnson in his prime and got bounced in the first round. The Dodgers got Scherzer and Turner and got bounced by the team with the worst record in the NL playoffs. With no guarantee the hypothetical is never anything more than a hypothetical.

[patrickgpe]

for a thread about Matt Arnold he hasn't been mentioned in 3 pages. maybe time to lock up????

[markedman5]

Of course going all out for a championship doesn’t guarantee that you will get it…….not even close…..so as a small market team you could easily……sell out to win one……not win it…..and then suck for decade while you recover.

 

I think I prefer many years of good baseball and hope that one of those years results in a championship.

[SomewhereInTime]

Here's a list of World Series winners over the last fifteen years with playoff appearances and regular season wins also included. If ATL wins this year they would join the list at 1 WS | 7 PO | 1,208 W (8th), if HOU wins they would join BOS & SFG as the only teams on the list with multiple World Series wins...

 

BOS: 3 WS | 8 PO | 1,274 W (4th)

SFG: 3 WS | 5 PO | 1,188 W (10th)

LAD: 1 WS | 11 PO | 1,332 W (1st)

NYY: 1 WS | 11 PO | 1,329 W (2nd)

STL: 1 WS | 9 PO | 1,274 W (3rd)

CHC: 1 WS | 7 PO | 1,187 W (12th)

HOU: 1 WS | 6 PO | 1,146 W (17th)

PHI: 1 WS | 5 PO | 1,171 W (14th)

WAS: 1 WS | 5 PO | 1,161 W (15th)

KCR: 1 WS | 2 PO | 1,067 W (28th)

 

Looking at the list the most obvious takeaway to me is that winning the World Series is INCREDIBLY HARD, mostly because the postseason is susceptible to large degrees of randomness.

 

If it weren't, the Dodgers & Yankees who have spent however many billions on payroll, and the Cardinals who have some sort of Devil Magick, would have more than one World Series each to go along with their 31 combined playoff appearances as the winningest teams of the last 15 years.

 

But even looking at a list of World Series winners, I still see a lot of heart break. The Royals with 13 years of irrelevance around their blip, the Nationals whole thing falling apart almost immediately after winning it all, the Phillies spending however many billions to not even make the playoffs anymore, the Astros success tainted by banging on a garbage can, the Cubs "dynasty" crumbled largely at the hands of the Brewers, all the sad STL/NYY/LAD fans in those 28 postseasons that didn't end in a World Series win, so what was really gained?

 

If the game was indeed designed to break your heart like Giamatti said, you better learn to love heart break.

 

There is a lack of truly dominant teams in this level of the sport. Most postseason series are between two 90something win teams separated by a few games over the course of six months.

[djoctagone]

matt arnold originally joined the organization as vice president and assistant general manager on 14 october 2015.

[Austin Tatious]

The thing about being competitive versus winning it all: I am of the mindset that you take as many cracks at the post season as possible because in one of those years, you can hopefully ascend. Atlanta was a .500 club two and a half months ago and now look like world beaters. On the other hand, even if you look dominant across the board, you may not win (think: 2021 Dodgers but they are hardly the only example).

 

So I like the current philosophy to protect reinforcements in future years. That's not to say we won't trade from a position of depth in our farm system. But we will obviously put a premium on a return of control. I like the philosophy because Stearns says repeatedly he wants consistent competitiveness.

 

I am a big follower of our farm system and minor league activity. I am going to make a prediction and you can call me on it if I end up wrong. A few years ago when we had Brinson and company, we had a highly regarded system. Now, we aren't rated so highly although we are on the upswing.

 

I think these rankings are fool's gold. And we have no way of knowing how the front office views our guys. But my prediction is that our current system will prove to be substantially better than when we were ranked highly. And by that I am talking in terms of quality big leaguers and other contributors that emerge. In the year 2031, we can compare 2017 (or whatever year that was when we were ranked highly) with our 2021 list. If I am wrong, you guys can call me on it. That's fine.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Austin Tatious

[djoctagone]

matt arnold graduated from the university of california-santa barbara with a bachelor's degree in economics in 2001. he merited academic honors, including sport management student of the year as a junior.

[djoctagone]

matt arnold transitioned from the cincinnati reds front office to the tampa bay rays following the 2006 season as a professional scout. he worked for the rays for nine seasons before joining the brewers.

[djoctagone]

matt arnold joins a long list of brewers general managers with a common first name as their last name:

 

matt arnold

doug melvin

dean taylor

harry dalton

frank lane