Plans for the future

[monty57]

In another thread, rluzinski quoted the following:

 

It's been past "We're a year away" for almost two years with the Brewers. Time to go for it. "

 

I thought the 2007 club was the first legitimate shot the Brewers had at even being over .500, so I guess my perspective is way different than yours. That 2005 club over achieved and still only won 81 games. I think the 2008 team has a chance at being special but I also think the 2009 and 10 team does as well. It's not necessary to put all their eggs in one basket yet.

Not wanting to go totally off-topic, I thought I'd bring this question to a new thread.

 

In an ideal "small market" world, a team can stock it's major league roster with relatively inexpensive young players. As these players become more expensive, a few "cornerstones" are signed long term, while the rest of the players are either traded off for new young talent, or they leave via free agency, giving you high draft picks to restock the farm system. Thereby, you will always have good young talent in the majors and future talent coming up through the farm system. While this is great in theory, it is awfully hard to do in reality, as it relies on a high percentage of your draft picks and youngsters acquired in trades actually panning out and becoming solid major league players. Plus, you can't afford to miss when signing a player to a long-term contract.

 

The Brewers are now in a situation where they have a solid core group of young players. While I wholeheartedly believe Jack Z and company have done a great job, there is also a deal of luck involved, as the picks have remained relatively healthy and some (Fielder, Braun) are performing at a level even Jack couldn't have predicted. It also took many terrible years leading to high draft picks to accumulate this talent. Hopefully, going forward, we won't see many top 10 draft picks in the future.

 

That being said, would you rather continue the A's / Twins model of never giving up the future for the present, or is there a time when it makes sense to go all out like the Marlins have done in the past, or the Tigers appear to be doing this year. In other words, if Russ is correct that 2009 / 2010 are the prime years for us, should we bet the farm at that time, giving us a better chance of winning the World Series, or should we continue along the A's / Twins line, potentially making the playoffs for a longer string, but having a lesser chance of winning it all.

 

While I have always been more of a "never bet the farm" type of guy, I can see benefits of both. The Marlins won a World Series by stocking up on high priced players, only to sell off after the season was done. The national media raked them over the coals, and they were bad for a couple of years, but the young talent they accumulated by trading away the vets brought them another World Series a few years later. They then stripped that team down (finally completed a few days ago), and are currently amassing young talent for another shot in a few years.

 

Meanwhile, the A's and Twins had long runs in the playoffs, but never went too far. Eventually, some of your draft picks / prospects won't pan out and you'll be in somewhat of a mess, with an average major league team and few players with which to continue to re-stock the farm system.

 

If the Brewers have a chance next offseason to pull off a Tigers-style trade, netting a couple of high-priced players they'll only have for two years, but costing a good portion of our top minor league talent, do you think it would be worth it? Let's say they'd get talent equivalent to Cabrera and Willis, but they'd have to give up top young talent (i.e. Laporte, Gamel, Parra, Jeffress, Gillespie, etc.). They would have two years to be dominant (especially in the weak National League), and then they'd likely lose the talent they just acquired plus Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, Hart, etc would all be hitting / nearing free ageny.

 

Would you do it?

[Thurston Fluff]

If you look at the attendance figures of the Marlins there are some very compelling reasons not to. This is form the other thread were we got off topic a bit but probably relevant to this one. Simple answer is the Marlins way does not foster growth of the fan base. If you wish to read on most of this is copied form the last Geno thread.

In 97 the Marlins won the WS after bringing in Shef and company the attendance that year was 2,364,387. This is not a great fiure but considering how young the franchise was and the crappy stadium the played in it wasn't horrid by any stretch of the imagination. Then they had the infamous fire sale for prospects. Next year should have seen a boost in attendance but the actual attendance dropped to 1,750,395. It can hardly be argued that there is not a direct coorelation to the breaking up of the team and the subsequent drop in attendance in what should have been an increase.
They agian won the WS in 03 and they had 1,303,215 and kept that core together after that year. 04 saw the boost to 1,723,105 and in 05 went to 1,823,388. Not back to the original 97 level but a two year trend upward. Then they traded for young players again. Guess what happened in 06? If you guessed a huge drop off in attendance you win the prize. 1,165,120 was the final total in 06 despite a surprisingly strong team for a good portion of the year. In essense they sabatoged their own efforts to continue to foster the growth in their fan base by not learning from their past mistakes in that area.
That seems to be a pattern. If you note that the numbers never got back to the original 97 number that should be some sort of indication that the franchise did something to turn off a portion of the fan base they had. Then did the same thing again to compound the problem.

Those changes cannot be attributed to it not being a baseball town or the fans are transplants and root for another team ect. If they never had fans in excess of 2 million it could be argued it's not a baseball town or the stadium sucks ect. The simple fact is Florida turned off roughly 1/2 million ticket paying fans by their mode of operation.

Now I won't argue that Florida could have done things differantly because the revenue may not have been enough to retain their team. What I will argue is it is not the way a team with a better revenue stream, strong attendance, and good stadium should run their franchise. Not if they don't wish to turn off 25% of their fans anyway.

Loria bought them in 02 after he sold the Expos to the other 29 teams. Hyzinga tried to buy a good team in an effort to get a new stadium built. When it didn't happen he gutted the team. At the time everyone was up in arms over the fact that the onwer gutted the team without giving it so much as a chance of defneidng it's title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Loria

For a further comparison of how badly it hurts the team, attnedance wise, to operate the way the Marlins do I'll add two other attendance figures that have some sort of similarity to the Marlins situation.

The AZ Diamonbacks won the WS in 01. They are similar in that it's a city of transplants and a young team with very little history. It was also a team that primarily bought the title buy getting Johnson and Shilling along wiht other veterans like Counsell ect. The year they won the WS they had an attendance fiure of 2,735,821. The following year they got a boost to 3,200,725.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/dbacks3.shtml

The Chicago White Sox are similar in that they both have owners that are not very popular with their fans and a white elephant of a stadium in a bad neighborhood with little chance of that changing anytime soon. Their attendance in their WS year of 05 was 2,342,834. They got a boost the following year to 2,957,414.

http://baseball-almanac.com/teams/wsoxatte.shtml

I couldn't find one single team that have had the success of the Marlins without some sort of concurring attendance boost after winning it all. It's simply unheard of outside of them from what I can see. If you look at it objectively there has to be a reason for that. I find very little evidence to suggest it is anything but the model they use to build their teams. It may be great for them to win a wildcard every five years or so and got them two World Series rings but it came at the expense of building or, at the very least, maintaining their fan base.

[Fatter than Joey]

Good post.

 

Here are my thoughts...

 

The Marlins have a fanbase of like 200, so I think they do what they do out of necessity. The Brewers probably have a little more resources to do what they want/need to compared to the Marlins.

 

I am starting to really challenge the concept that the Brewers do an excellent job drafting for their team. Certainly the Brewers have done a good job drafting some types of players, but compared to the A's and Twins, the Brewers have not done anywhere near as good developing catchers or pitchers in their system. Therefore I don't think the Brewers can follow the A's/Twins model even if they wanted to. If the Brewers were a big-market team, I would think they could harvest the FA market willy-nilly, however being a small-market, I think they will end up trading guys like LaPorta for arms -- and I really don't think they have an option otherwise.

[sbrylski]

That being said, would you rather continue the A's / Twins model of never giving up the future for the present, or is there a time when it makes sense to go all out like the Marlins have done in the past, or the Tigers appear to be doing this year. In other words, if Russ is correct that 2009 / 2010 are the prime years for us, should we bet the farm at that time, giving us a better chance of winning the World Series, or should we continue along the A's / Twins line, potentially making the playoffs for a longer string, but having a lesser chance of winning it all.

 

Definitely the A's / Twins. I'd argue the Marlins got rather lucky in their WS runs. They were definitely not favored to win in the postseason those years, which helps show the postseason is a crapshoot anyway. Getting to the postseason as often as possible would give you the best chance at a WS.

 

Were those Marlins' teams better than the A's teams of the late 90's? I'd argue probably not, despite the A's postseason struggles. Florida's model does not present a better plan for winning a championship or maintaining competitive and enjoyable baseball to watch.

 

I am starting to really challenge the concept that the Brewers do an excellent job drafting for their team. Certainly the Brewers have done a good job drafting some types of players, but compared to the A's and Twins, the Brewers have not done anywhere near as good developing catchers or pitchers in their system. Therefore I don't think the Brewers can follow the A's/Twins model even if they wanted to.

 

I'm not sure I agree. Our entire offensive lineup, sans Kendall, has been drafted by the Brewers (all except Hall by Jack Z). Gallardo and Parra were draft picks, and Villanueva was acquired as a A baller, so he also came up through the system. I think we've also had some bad luck with pitching injuries. Our system is also still fairly deep despite graduating so many in recent years. I think we've done a very fine job drafting, and we have a GM who is very trade savvy.

 

Also, the Twins have definitely developed some quality pitchers, but how much hitting have they? Other than Morneau and Mauer, there offense is quite weak. Kubel, though still young, has been a disappointment, Cuddyer hasn't been great... Don't think the Twin's or the A's have a perfect draft record either, just because they've been successful.

[Fatter than Joey]

Don't think the Twin's or the A's have a perfect draft record either, just because they've been successful.

 

Never said that they were perfect -- only more balanced.

[sbrylski]

Don't think the Twin's or the A's have a perfect draft record either, just because they've been successful.

 

Never said that they were perfect -- only more balanced.

And I disagree. They've done well with pitching and grabbed a top catcher (1st overall - hardly praiseworthy). Also, Morneau panned out well.

We've done very well with hitting, and are now seeing our pitching catch up. Keep in mind we are also a few years behind the Twins in this building process.

 

Minnesota - RS 14th, RA 4th

Milwaukee - RS 5th, RA 9th

 

Rough comparison, but I'd say our team is a little more balanced, though Delmon young could single handedly balance out the Twins as well. I just don't see much difference between these two teams' drafting success.

[Fatter than Joey]

Let's see.. Cuddyer, Kubel, Hunter Jacque Jones, they have gotten some decent production out of LeCroy. Pierzynski, David Ortiz has been decent. Corey Koske. Todd Walker and Doug Mientkiewicz had good runs as well.

[hauser42]

I think the Brewers will stay away from the Marlins model. I see them keep rotating the talent around some core guys that they keep. Sorry I'm not in the boat the Prince just gets up and leaves this franchise if they come close to a market contract.

 

Am I wrong or wont the Brewers still get picks if they loose top players via free agency?? I heard once that compensation might chance wich would force more trades.

 

Ortiz was very average as a Twin and really boomed once in Boston. Todd Walker was nothing in the Twin Cites, LeCroy may have had a one month run. They have been very average developing hitters. Luis Rivas was suppose to be a 2B for a long time but he has since flamed out.

[sbrylski]

Let's see.. Cuddyer, Kubel, Hunter Jacque Jones, they have gotten some decent production out of LeCroy. Pierzynski, David Ortiz has been decent. Corey Koske. Todd Walker and Doug Mientkiewicz had good runs as well.

I mentioned Cuddyer and Kubel, and also how they aren't that great. They are .800 OPS guys that play corner OF and DH. I wouldn't exactly call them shining achievements of the Twins great drafting. And that's the best they have (sans Morneau and Mauer) in the majors or high minors that I know of.

 

LeCroy had two decent seasons in a part time role. In 8 years.

 

They didn't exactly capitolize on David Ortiz.

 

Pierzynski and Mientkiewicz we're okay, I guess. Walker maybe too. But these guys are all below average for their career.

 

Hunter (1993), Jones (1996), and Koskie (1994) are all quite a while ago now.

 

Our team has generated comparable offensive talent to that list in half the time, IMO, without getting to intense with the evaluation.

 

[Fatter than Joey]

Our team has generated comparable offensive talent to that list in half the time, IMO, without getting to intense with the evaluation.

 

Yes -- agreed -- My point was that the Brewers have not done as well with the pitching, and really need to grab pitchers from outside the organization. I don't think the Brewers have the best track record with developing pitchers.

 

The Twins won 4 divisions in 5 years -- most of their sticks were homegrown. Guys like Hunter/Koskie/Jones were so solid that they didn't need to worry about those positions.

[hauser42]

Our team has generated comparable offensive talent to that list in half the time, IMO, without getting to intense with the evaluation.

 

Yes -- agreed -- My point was that the Brewers have not done as well with the pitching, and really need to grab pitchers from outside the organization. I don't think the Brewers have the best track record with developing pitchers.

 

The Twins won 4 divisions in 5 years -- most of their sticks were homegrown. Guys like Hunter/Koskie/Jones were so solid that they didn't need to worry about those positions.

I agree with you on the point of Brewers producing pitchers, but that has been more about bad luck with injuries than anything. You could argue the drafting of high school arms also has not helped.

 

Twins got in a run when the Tigers sucked, Indians rebuilt, White Sox had one good year, Royals dont count. This could be the spot the Brewers are in right now since the Cards and Stros could be rebuilding, Pirates and Reds barely count and only leaves the Cubs.

[monty57]

Good points about the attendance numbers. That could hamper a franchise.

 

If we take out the idea of the "Marlins model," does anyone think making a Cabrera-style trade may work. I know one caveats of these trades is signing the player to a long-term deal (aka Santana), which takes the Brewers out of the picture, but in the Cabrera case, both players were in arby so there was no no-trade clause.

 

Next off season, we could be looking at a lineup with Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, Braun, Hart & Hall all having a couple of years left before free agency. Let's say we get a chance to make a trade that nets us Mauer and a good pitcher in exchange for our top five prospects. I'm not certain of Mauer's contract, but for this example let's assume he and the pitcher both have two years left before free agency.

 

That would give us an All-Star lineup top to bottom with a very good pitching staff led by Yo, Villy and the newly acquired pitcher. However in two seasons, a lot of players would be coming up for free agency. We wouldn't be able to sign all of them, so we'd need to either make a couple of trades or accept a boatload of 1st & 2nd round picks as they left for free agency. I'm not talking a sell off like the Marlins, but rather a situation where a lot of players would leave via free agency.

 

In this case, would you make the trade to have a lineup that would consist of Weeks, Hart, Braun, Fielder, Mauer, Hardy, Hall, LF/3B and a pitching staff of Yo, Villy, MIN guy, Suppan, #5, knowing that in two years, there would be a good chance you'd be up against a wall financially without a lot of high-level minor leaguers ready to step in?

 

I know this is borderline "Trade rumors/proposals" material, but I'm not really expecting Mauer to be made available, it's more theoretical than anything.

[dvoiss]

Obviously the key to being successfl in the future lies in player procurement and development. We need to continue to draft well and develop our players in a way where they can help us at a time when we need them. We all know that our infield won't stay together long after being granted FA so we need to have replacemnets ready. So really the future, IMO, is in the hands of Jack Z and Reid Nichols maybe even more tham in Melvins. What these two do in drafting and developing players is going to if not force DM's hand at least heavily impact his decisions.

 

The Marlins model won't work because the down years after a fire sale will negatively affect fan interest to the extent that we won't have a revenue stream to fund a resurgence until the kids acquired in these sales are ready to play winning ball. That's if the kids acquired are ever ready. I do not believe that a worlds championship is going to bring in that much more revenue than a trip to the playoffs. Milwaukee fans are fired up after missing the playoffs in 07. Fired up enough to create a strong revenue for 08.

 

IMO it's too big a gamble to go the FLA route. The Oakland route is more consistent and thus a better approach. Once you make the playoffs anything can happen. All you have to do is catch fire for 2 weeks and you're world champs (see 06 Cards) So I don't necessarily think the FLA model is more likely to produce a world championship anyway.