Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hmmm.

 

I think there will be very different reactions to this signing depending upon which camp you fall in.

 

If you think the Brewers just had a star-crossed year last year with injuries and the Braun drama and aren't far off from competiting, I can see why this deal is attractive. They get a solid pitcher at a reasonable price to shore up a rotation that was not very good last year.

 

But if you think the Brewers as an organization have significant ground to make up on the Pirates, Reds, and Cards, then what's the point in investing four years and $50 MM into an injury prone starter? Seems like rearranging the deck chairs a bit.

 

I personally fall in the latter category. I'm suspicious why teams who are closer to competiting and could really use an additional arm (Giants, Yankees, Pirates etc.) opted to pass on a guy like Garza at that price point. Could it be the injuries? Moreover, it continues a distrubing trend by Brewer management to build a patchwork team. I'd much rather see them trading veterans and rebuilding that farm system than throwing more money at injury prone veterans.

Last edited by Rockin' Robin
Originally Posted by Orlando Wolf:
Not much downside to this deal. No prospects surrendered, no lost draft picks and paying a 30 year old pitcher isn't the worst thing to do with you cash.

There's $50+ million of downside to this deal. As much as they act like it sometimes, the Brewers are not the Dodgers, Yankees, or Red Sox. If Garza is injured or ineffective, that's $50 million of a limited budget that could be used elsewhere.

 

Beyond that, there's the opportunity cost. If you believe the Brewers really need to revamp their farm system, an investment like this may make it less likely the Brewers become sellers if they have a mediocre first half. 

 

But this does raise an interesting question…if Garza could be had for a reasonable amount, why did the big pocket clubs who really could write this off not bite? 

Last edited by Rockin' Robin
I don't think it's reasonable to be skeptical just because the big markets didn't bite. Seems kinda self-defeating to judge any move by that measuring stick.

But what is reasonable is to question the player himself as to whether he will live up to the deal. He's oft injured, and by all accounts has been a clubhouse flake. Not surly or unliked, just his antics wear on people over time. Maybe he's grown out oif that. 

If he stays healthy and has good chemistry with the staff and coaches, it's a slam dunk move. He can be a top line starter with his stuff. This could be a great move.
Originally Posted by Rockin' Robin:
There's $50+ million of downside to this deal. As much as they act like it sometimes, the Brewers are not the Dodgers, Yankees, or Red Sox. If Garza is injured or ineffective, that's $50 million of a limited budget that could be used elsewhere.

 

Beyond that, there's the opportunity cost. If you believe the Brewers really need to revamp their farm system, an investment like this may make it less likely the Brewers become sellers if they have a mediocre first half. 

 

But this does raise an interesting question…if Garza could be had for a reasonable amount, why did the big pocket clubs who really could write this off not bite? 

You really need to recognize that the economics of baseball have changed.  Dramatically.  $13M a year for a front line starter is frankly a steal.  The Brewers are getting ~$30M/year additional from the TV contract alone.  Obviously our owner doesn't think the outlay is too much.  Mark A is trying to produce a competitive team on the field, and this is a fantastic move (should it happen I guess).  The costs of it are not prohibitive enough to hamstring them for years to come.  This is chump change in today's MLB, even for Milwaukee.  

 

And, as for your comment on becoming sellers, again, I think you're missing it here.  If Milwaukee becomes sellers, they would have with Garza an affordable top line pitcher with 3 + years of control.  They could theoretically make out like bandits with that kind of an asset.  It doesn't make them less likely to become sellers at all.  It 1) makes them a better team, which I'd think we all want and 2) if they do become sellers, they likely have the most attractive asset on the market.  Which would give them the best opportunity to build the farm system.   If they are mediocre (which I am thinking, what like .500?) I can't imagine them being sellers regardless.  If they are .500 or above, no team likely is selling.  If they are under, they have a great chip to make moves with.  

 

However, I tend to focus on a good major league team vs those that pine forever on having a perceived great minor league system that may/may not ever produce great Major League talent.   How's Matt LaPorta doing, BTW?

 

 

Originally Posted by CAPackFan95:
You really need to recognize that the economics of baseball have changed.  Dramatically.  $13M a year for a front line starter is frankly a steal.
 

And, as for your comment on becoming sellers, again, I think you're missing it here.  If Milwaukee becomes sellers, they would have with Garza an affordable top line pitcher with 3 + years of control.  They could theoretically make out like bandits with that kind of an asset.  

 

My big concern is that with Garza's recent health history (and rumors of teams shying away from him this offseason b/c of medicals) he may not be an asset at all.

 

To put it another way, I see this as a high risk / low reward situation. If Garza isn't healthy or doesn't perform, that's another $50+ million flushed away on an aging pitcher and another missed opportunity to rebuild around young pitchers. On the flip side, even if he does stay healthy and pitch great, it may put the Brewers in no man's land -- too good to sell but not good enough to truly compete, especially in their division.

 

That may be overly pessimistic, and I understand if others are more bullish. But I guess I just don't buy into the Brewers team building philosophy. It just seems so piece meal -- basically a patchwork job of sighing next tier free agents. Meanwhile Chicago, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis have loaded farm systems and Cincy has more current MLB talent. 

 

Everyone fawns over TT's draft and develop approach with the Packers for good reason. But at least in football there's an even playing field with salary cap and shared revenues. Seems like in MLB, a draft and develop philosophy would be even more important for a team like Milwaukee. Yet they've only developed one pitcher (Gallardo) in the last decade and have relied on either trading top prospects or making desperation signings to fill out their pitching staff. And that just doesn't strike me as the smartest approach.

Last edited by Rockin' Robin



quote:
To put it another way, I see this as a high risk / low reward situation. If Garza isn't healthy or doesn't perform, that's another $50+ million flushed away on an aging pitcher and another missed opportunity to rebuild around young pitchers. On the flip side, even if he does stay healthy and pitch great, it may put the Brewers in no man's land -- too good to sell but not good enough to truly compete, especially in their division.




 

I actually don't see it that way at all

 

Any free agent signing is a risk given the fact that MLB contract are guaranteed.  However, the Brewers cost themselves any chance of the postseason last year with dreadful starting pitching the first two months of the season and Garza is a proven starter that can certainly help them. 

 

He has missed some games so I think that's a concern but I think it's a bigger concern not to sign a guy like Garza and have a gaping hole in your rotation.   With him in the fold I am really starting to like how the pitching staff is shaping up and they will not have a legit chance of competing this year without good starting pitching.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Robin:
My big concern is that with Garza's recent health history (and rumors of teams shying away from him this offseason b/c of medicals) he may not be an asset at all.

To put it another way, I see this as a high risk / low reward situation. If Garza isn't healthy or doesn't perform, that's another $50+ million flushed away on an aging pitcher and another missed opportunity to rebuild around young pitchers. On the flip side, even if he does stay healthy and pitch great, it may put the Brewers in no man's land -- too good to sell but not good enough to truly compete, especially in their division.


What young pitchers are we missing the opportunity to build around?  Seriously.  Are there some pitchers in the organization I'm not aware of?  Is there some MLB team that's going to give us 3 young studs for Rickie Weeks?  What am I missing?

As for no man's land, I'll take good competitive baseball over a Houston Astros version of losing.  Baseball economics are such that any expectation of the Brewers competing is fantasy.  I'd rather watch a 88-92 win team play than a 60.  Most likely the Brewers aren't competing in the NL with LA, STL, ATL anyway. 

Seems like in MLB, a draft and develop philosophy would be even more important for a team like Milwaukee. Yet they've only developed one pitcher (Gallardo) in the last decade and have relied on either trading top prospects or making desperation signings to fill out their pitching staff. And that just doesn't strike me as the smartest approach.

Just so I'm clear, you want the Brewers that haven't drafted well at all to focus on draft and develop?  That seems counter-intuitive, no?   

 

Of course, it would be nice to see them draft better, but here's the thing.  You complain about trading top prospects, right?  

 

Which top prospect that Milwaukee has traded done anything?  

 

Lawrie is a middling 2B with an attitude.  He's literally Weeks with less power.  

Escobar is a good defensive SS.  He's atrocious at the plate.  His OPS+ was 53 last year.  Yawn.  And we have SS well covered, doncha think?

Odorizzi still has yet to stick, maybe he does with TB this year, who knows.  Young pitchers are a crapshoot at best.

Jeffress is a reliever that hasn't done anything and is one pot session away from lifetime ban

As for the guys in the Sabathia trade, Michael Brantley is an average CF.  The rest have done, and will do nothing.

 

For all these traded top prospects, the only possible one you could look back on and say "damn I wish we'd still have him" is Odorizzi.  Maybe.  Every big trade where we gave up supposed "top prospects" has netted out EXTREMELY positively for the Brewers.  Sabathia gave us first post season in 26 years.  Marcum and Greinke delivered a post season including a post season series win.  Add in that we turned Greinke for Segura and there shouldn't be any consternation whatsoever about what Milwaukee has traded.  Frankly, its the shining reference on Melvin's resume in Milwaukee.

 

 

Last edited by El-Ka-Bong
Last edited by El-Ka-Bong

I'll readily admit there are different ways to build a team and different ways to look at this deal. Maybe Garza and some health is all the Brewers need to make the playoffs and once you get there anything can happen.

 

But my personal view is I don't like the way the Brewers are building their team. It's the same approach the Bucks have taken over the years and while a different sport, we see how well that approach has worked.

 

If you're not good at drafting and developing players, then perhaps you need to clean house and get new scouts and new coaches.

 

Even with Garza, I personally don't think this team is better than St. Louis and Pitt at the major league level, and perhaps even Cincy. Sooner rather than later, the Cubs rebuild will be complete and the Brewers may fall behind them.

 

But it's Mark A's team and he clearly likes drawing 2.5 million a year and having a high payroll. So we'll keep investing in solid players like Garza, Lohse, Ramirez, etc. to stay competitive rather than take a major step back to restock and rebuild for another deep run. And again, that may be a fine approach by some, but it's just not the way I would do it.

I'm confused what exactly you have a problem with here with regard to the way that Mark A and Melvin are building the team.  

 

The Milwaukee Brewers under the ownership of the Seligs made the playoffs twice and won one playoff series in 35 years .  They went from 1983 to 2004 without making the playoffs.  They drafted and developed throughout.  And, it produced virtually nothing.  They drafted high and nothing panned out, as draft picks are a crap shoot.

 

In fact, the ONLY years they made the playoffs under the ownership of the Selig's was in large part due to the major trades for solid players you seem to have issues with - when they traded for Vuke/Fingers/Simmons and then Sutton.  Without those trades, it's quite likely the Brewers never make the playoffs under Selig.

 

Yet under Attanasio, the Brewers have made the playoffs twice and won one playoff series in 9 seasons.  They are over .500 in those 9 years overall.  They have finished at or over .500 5 of those 9 years - with a 6th year winning 80.  They have drafted and developed guys like Ryan Braun, Yovani Gallardo, Rickie Weeks, Corey Hart, JJ Hardy, Jonathon Lucroy, and Price Fielder.  They have a few guys that hopefully keep improving, guys like Peralta, Thornburg, Davis.  All this in an era where the haves to have nots is growing every year.  Keep in mind that the downside to draft and develop when you a small market team like Milwaukee is when you have to resign those developed players and you can't match insane contracts for guys like Fielder or Hart.  

 

This franchise has been in contention in September more often than not.  They have a farm system that developed a few great players and others that allowed us to make moves to improve the team and go to the playoffs.  They have a couple pitchers that might develop further.  They have made a couple nice FA moves, they have made a couple bad FA moves.  

 

I'm not exactly sure what you want.  Do you expect us to be in the playoffs every year?  Do you want to win the ever exciting Baseball America farm team of the year award year in/year out?  

 

Finally though, you say that the way it's currently being done is not the way you would do it.

 

So, how would you do it?  What model are you following here?  What is the end game?

Last edited by Timpranillo

Not every team can be the Cards with drafting and developing players.   I think the Brewers have been pretty good overall with managing their personnel which includes homegrown players and free agents.  

 

Sure, we'd all like to see more top notch talent come up through the minors but it doesn't always work out.  See Brett Lawrie and Matt LaPorta and Mat Gamel.   However,  I really like the potential of Peralta and Thornburg and let's not forget Jean Segura is like another draft pick.  Khris Davis also looked decent down the stretch last year. 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by CAPackFan95:

I'm confused what exactly you have a problem with here with regard to the way that Mark A and Melvin are building the team.  

 

So, how would you do it?  What model are you following here?  What is the end game?

Here's a summary of my view…again, not trying to say others are wrong, but just the way I see it:

 

1) For the Brewers to be successful, they need to rely on young talent. The NLCS run was built on players who we developed (Fielder, Hardy, Hart, Braun, Weeks Lucroy, Gallardo) and players we acquired by trading prospects. It was not built on big $ free agent signings

 

2) That farm system created a window of competitiveness that I believe has largely closed. We still have Braun but at a much higher price tag. Segura is a nice piece. Gomez had a great year last year, but let's see if it can be done again. But by an large, as the core players have moved on, we've done a very poor job of replenishing the system for the future.

 

3) Priority 1 for me, therefore, would be rebuilding the pipeline. The scouting department has not done well recently. The development of pitchers is nonexistent. These are critical tools for a team in Milwaukee's market. I would replace the scouting department and bring in someone who has a track record of developing minor league pitchers. I'd rather pay extra for those individuals than shell out big bucks for a reliever.

 

4) Priority 2 for me would be to sell talent for prospects. One of Melvin's biggest failings IMO was not selling guys like Hart, Weeks, etc. earlier when they had value. A team like Milwaukee has to be smart about when guys have peak value and when to deal. Oakland does this very well. I know it's easy to say sell this guy for prospects, but the reality is there is talent to get. Oakland got Parker and now a nice pitching prospect from Colorado. The White Sox got a nice 3B prospect for a relief pitcher from the Diamondbacks. Maybe Melvin tried and couldn't get it done. But I'd probably sell high on Carlos Gomez right now. He had an unreal year and is a great defensive player, but I just question if he will regress this year especially at the plate.

 

Bottom line to me is the success Mark A and Melvin have had in Milwaukee were largely the by-product of a strong farm system they inherited. I'll give them credit for making some good moves to maximize that talent and create some real excitement. But now with many of those assets having either moved on or become ineffective, they are at a crossroads. And I don't think this approach of giving up picks for a guy like Lohse or signing injury prone veterans like Ramirez or Garza is the wisest approach at this stage of their franchise. If they were stocked with younger talent and ready to contend, I'd have a different view -- those moves may be more appropriate in that context. But within the context of where they stand compared to their division rivals, I don't think this is the effective way to build a team. I'd prefer them to follow the Rays or Oakland model which is primarily to acquire and develop young pitching. That's how you counteract the big pockets of the Cardinals or Dodgers or whoever. And it's great to know we have an owner who is willing to shell out $ to retain talent or acquire someone to put us over the top. But I just don't think we're at that stage now…again, just my opinion.

Last edited by Rockin' Robin
Originally Posted by ammo:

So we should develop guys only to sell them when at the highest value.  You'll win a lot of pennants doing that.

I don't believe I said that, and it's certainly not what I meant to imply.

 

You just need to be realistic about your teams chances. If you have a team on the rise and are is peaking, then no way do you sell. That's the time to trade prospects and sign free agents to put you over the top. And to Melvin and Mark A's credit, that's what they did a few years ago.

 

However, I don't think the Brewers are in that position anymore. If you are on the decline and look around and see yourself outgunned in your division, then yes, deal assets and rebuild rather than throw money at free agents. I think that's the more prudent approach. But of course, I have the benefit of having no financial interest in the team, so if the team tanks and attendance goes from 2.5 million to 1.5 million, it's not on my dime, even though I think that's the best long term strategy.

I think the window is still open (despite not having a dominant pitcher).  Garza, Loshe and Yo gives you three 2/3 types (more 2, I'll say 2.4) which gives you a pretty good set of horses to ride.  Two years ago the pen was a mess, last year pitching.  Those two things have been upgraded (on paper) so I guess there is a chance.  I get that Cincy, SL, and Pitt have done thing too, but this is a competitive team.  I'll take that.  Injuries can decimate a team, or they can decimate the other team. 

 

If things go down the ****ter again this year, then I'll advocate for a couple more trades to acquire talent.  If they are in it, then I'd like to see a move (maybe for a real first basemen). 

 

Still on board with replacing Seid. 

Originally Posted by Rockin' Robin:
Originally Posted by ammo:

So we should develop guys only to sell them when at the highest value.  You'll win a lot of pennants doing that.

I don't believe I said that, and it's certainly not what I meant to imply.

 

 

Well, this is what you posted:      "Priority 2 for me would be to sell talent for prospects. One of Melvin's biggest failings IMO was not selling guys like Hart, Weeks, etc. earlier when they had value. A team like Milwaukee has to be smart about when guys have peak value and when to deal."

 

How else can this be understood?

 

 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×