Stop the "Brewers Are Trying to Lose" Narrative...Now
Over the past few days, I've heard a number of local sports radio hosts talking about how the Milwaukee Brewers are trying to lose this season.
This perverted perspective needs to stop because it's simply not true. It's a ridiculous notion that almost shouldn't be dignified with a response; however, a defense of the organization is warranted here.
There is a distinct plan in place that has many moving parts complementing one another...and losing intentionally isn't one of them.
First of all, there's a decent chance the 2016 Brewers will improve upon their record from last year. That immediately throws a wrench into the "trying to lose" argument, unless you think they can't even lose the right way (yes, there will be some saying that).
The Brewers went 68-94 last season by trying to continue their patchwork strategy of keeping and acquiring 2nd or 3rd-tier veterans who may have already reached the downside of their careers (hi, Kyle Lohse).
They've gone with this similar strategy for the past half-decade or so with uneven success.
Owner Mark Attanasio allowed the payroll to balloon to $103 and $104 million on Opening Day the past two seasons, stretching the limits of Milwaukee's financial damn until it nearly burst. It resulted in a failed postseason run and the club's worst record since 2004.
At some point with small-to-mid market franchises, the dollars must reset to create room to develop a more sustainable pattern of spending. That is the big picture everyone needs to see, while recognizing that losing intentionally isn't part of the plan.
I'd argue it works in the NBA where the top pick will account for 20% of your starting lineup and can immediately impact the team's success. Major League Baseball is different on many levels.
Aside from the strategy being flawed in MLB, what evidence is there that the Brewers are actually trying to lose?
They've stockpiled young talent, which can serve the team well now and in the future. They aren't trotting out Single-A players with no future or a squad full of 35-year-olds.
David Stearns has been vigilant in signing and trading for as much potential as possible. In theory, the more guys you have, the better chance a few of them surprise you now or stick with the club for the long haul.
People like to look at some of the trades made by Stearns as an example of "tanking." It's a frustrating belief.
Jean Segura had been rather terrible the past 2 seasons offensively (.285 OBP, .615 OPS), and his defense was about average. Putting Jonathan Villar (acquired in a trade) at shortstop, along with the 2 Major Leaguers coming back from the Arizona Diamondbacks, improved the 2016 roster.
With Villar and the addition of Arizona's Chase Anderson from into the rotation, this represents an increase in value for the Brewers. If Aaron Hill can deliver some pop from the right side of the dish while at 2nd and 3rd base, it's an additional bonus.
That's not to mention Isan Diaz, the MVP of the Pioneer League last season who the D-Backs also sent to Milwaukee.
Khris Davis was another known commodity that was dealt away. He gave the Crew power and some solid value, but he wasn't a cornerstone player.
With Ryan Braun sliding back to left field and youngster Domingo Santana taking over in right, I'd argue the overall production from the corner outfield spots will be the same or slightly improved over the Davis/Braun combo.
Braun plays better in left field than in right, while Santana covers ground well, has a strong arm, and displays a high power ceiling to possibly mirror Davis' numbers. Santana also showed improved discipline at the plate where his .345 OBP would be an edge over Davis.
And again, looking to the future as well, getting catcher Jacob Nottingham from the Oakland A's was a shrwed move. The Brewers hope he can be the eventual replacement for Jonathan Lucroy, who egardless of the situation, is likely gone after 2017 anyway.
Those were the two major moves this offseason, on top of Stearns bringing in a ton of players to compete at other positions.
He also traded Adam Lind for 3 young pitchers, which clearly was a move for the future, and one that didn't help the 2016 club. Of course, he then signed a familiar face in Chris Carter (former Houston Astro) to man first and hit bombs.
Closer Francisco Rodriguez was also shipped out, because it's unecessary to have a pricey 9th-inning arm when your team isn't playoff ready and the bullpen is full of young, cost-effective and capable arms.
The other side of the argument that hosts and fans bring up is that "he didn't bring in any big-name talent." Well, Matt Garza and Kyle Lohse were big-name free agents and those results were up-and-down overall.
If you really want to add top tier talent and guys who bring major value to a club, it's going to cost a whole lot more in dollars and years. It's also been proven time and again that brining in a couple costly free agents is far from a guaranteed elixir.
When those don't work out, teams often need to quickly backtrack because the money quickly goes dry. That's especially true for a franchise like Milwaukee in assessing potential value versus risk.
Do people really think Milwaukee would have raised their win total significantly in 2016 by signing ace David Price to the 7-year, $217 million deal that the Boston Red Sox offered? It would've taken more money, been an enormous gamble, and added (maybe) a handful of wins.
For the record, that would've been a $30 million cost this season alone.
Don't get me wrong, it'd be tremendous to have Price on the hill for Milwaukee every 5 days. The problem is the likelihood he gets hurt or declines in his 30's before the rest of the pieces are in place to win a World Series.
It also would strap the Brewers' future moves by committing such a large chunk to one starter for the next 7 seasons. As part of the deal, he could also opt out after 3 seasons - again before Milwaukee would be ready.
But maybe you say they could've also brought Justin Upton aboard to boost the offense. Sure, just another $132 million over 6 years. That's now about $52 million for just two free agents, if they actually wanted to come here without getting more cash.
As it stands now, the Brewers' estimated payroll to start the season will be around $63 million. Adding Price and Upton would've pumped the total cost to $115 million - that would be $5 million more than the highest total in Brewers' history.
Let's argue that those moves gave the Brewers 12 more wins. A record of 76-86 doesn't get me excited at that price, especially with the deals limiting Milwaukee's flexibility for years. It would basically be the same song and dance as recent seasons.
Instead, Stearns and company are giving the younger guys a chance to grow and prove their mettle. He's filled in other spots with veterans looking to prove something, either on 1-year deals or in contract years.
With all that said, it wouldn't be surprising to see the Brewers win 72-74 games this season without adding those high-priced mercenaries. It's a similar result with player growth and financial flexibility, two musts for clubs not playing with Monopoly money.
If you want to argue that the front office is less concerned with losing than in the past, that is probably fair. The broader goal is annual success.
For the players and manager Craig Counsell, their focus remains the quest to win on a daily basis, improve individually, and learn how all the pieces fit together on the diamond. Losing isn't the goal of any person in the organization - period.