Fill out '09 rotation with trades, not big FA deals

[TheCrew07]

Al,

Torres has a club option for '09... he may well retire like you suggest, which is why I posting about the roster as is, though I probably didn't make that clear enough. I was pretty close to the Wickman situation when he was going to retire, and it just seems like if the money is good enough there's always 1 more year left in a guy.

[kramnoj]

By the way, we have no idea if Torres will be back or not, he's a FA and has hinted at retirement as recent as June or July.

 

Cot's has Torres with a 09:$3.75M club option ($0.3M buyout) He may choose to retire, but I don't think he's a FA.

 

I just have a hard time justifying paying someone in the bottom half of the talent pool the 2nd most money on the team.

 

Why do you frame things this way? Putting together a contender shouldn't be about salary justice, it should be done by maximizing resources to get the most talent on the field. Money is basically a renewable resource for MLB teams these days. The talent that will be needed to get a quality SP is not. I would much rather spend money to improve the team in the offseason and keep prospects to develop or to acquire talent during the season for a drive or to cover for injuries. The other thing is that you have a budget to spend, you might as well use it as best you can to field the best team you can.

[dadofandrew]

Thank you for the correction about the option, that will certainly be exercised barring him blowing out his arm. I was unaware of that.

[TheCrew07]

Why do you frame things this way? Putting together a contender shouldn't be about salary justice, it should be done by maximizing resources to get the most talent on the field. Money is basically a renewable resource for MLB teams these days. The talent that will be needed to get a quality SP is not. I would much rather spend money to improve the team in the offseason and keep prospects to develop or to acquire talent during the season for a drive or to cover for injuries. The other thing is that you have a budget to spend, you might as well use it as best you can to field the best team you can.

To answer your question because I'm value orientated and I'm not into limiting my options, having 2/9 of the available payroll tied into our 4th and 5th starting pitchers isn't good value, or good business. The rotation obviously has to be addressed, but why lock yourself into 4 more years of mediocre starting pitching when the system is deep? I'm not punting on 2009, but I do think that 2010 is going to be the next real good team in Milwaukee. Just because the team has money to spend, doesn't mean they should spend it foolishly, again that's simply not good value or good business. I'll use the Packers as an example, TT's idea of roster management directly reflects my own. He builds from within, doesn't overspend in free agency, and plugs holes with 2nd tier guys when necessary. He always seems to get good value for the money. I know many people don't like TT, especially after the Favre debacle, and I don't agree with everything he does, but I'm totally on board with his strategy. Up here in GB people are always calling and complaining because TT doesn't make FA moves and max out cap and I've never understood why he use it, just because it's there. In the same way I don't think it's smart for the Brewers to spend 85-90 mil every year just because they can. I would go so far as to say that it wouldn't kill the Brewers to put McClung in the rotation next year and see how Jeffress, Periard, and Braddock do in AA and AAA next year before making a FA move either.

 

I'll ask a question right back, how is Halladay/Lowe/Burnette/Dempster/etc better value than Shields/Santana/Niemann/etc? It seems to me it's far better to control a given pitcher for multiple years while he's on the rise and peaking, than pay that same pitcher market value when he's on the down side of his career. I would have been much happier long term if LaPorta had been traded for a Marcum type pitcher, someone who we'd control for multiple years. I have absolutely no complaints about how well Sabathia has done, who possibly could? The point is that I tend to favor longer term solutions, which is why I hate aquiring rental players for top talent.

[kramnoj]

Just because the team has money to spend, doesn't mean they should spend it foolishly, again that's simply not good value or good business.

 

I completely agree, it's not good to spend money foolishly. I also don't think it is good value to trade away good prospects simply because your team has a surplus at one given time

 

I'll ask a question right back, how is Halladay/Lowe/Burnette/Dempster/etc better value than Shields/Santana/Niemann/etc?.

 

Why is this question adressed to me? I haven't said that is good value. I have said that it is better to spend available money than to trade away limited prospects. If you have top prospects, certainly develop them and retain them. But trading away resources to get them wouldn't be my first option. If Melvin tries to sign a FA SP and doesn't see a good deal, I don't think he should do it just to do it. But it should be the first option to improving the team.

 

The point is that I tend to favor longer term solutions, which is why I hate aquiring rental players for top talent.

 

Sure, who doesn't. Cheap controlled talent is the most valuable resource in the game. But if you trading for it, you are going to pay a high price in talent.

[TheCrew07]

Why is this question adressed to me? I haven't said that is good value. I have said that it is better to spend available money than to trade away limited prospects. If you have top prospects, certainly develop them and retain them. But trading away resources to get them wouldn't be my first option. If Melvin tries to sign a FA SP and doesn't see a good deal, I don't think he should do it just to do it. But it should be the first option to improving the team.

 

Sure, who doesn't. Cheap controlled talent is the most valuable resource in the game. But if you trading for it, you are going to pay a high price in talent.

It was addressed to you because you're in favor of spending money to sign a FA pitcher. My point is that it's better to aquire any starting pitcher early and pay them on the front end, rather than pay them on the back end. Of course we have to give something to get something... but I highly doubt the team will hang onto prospects that are blocked. For example what value does Gillespie have to the Brewers at this point? I would submit his greatest value is as a trade piece, not as depth. If the Crew could trade Hardy + Gillespie + 2 A ball pitchers for a Santana type pitcher, why not ? I'm not saying that's exactly the deal, but it would be pretty close depending on the player, and a Neimann type without an MLB track record would be much cheaper. The Brewers have been excellent developing bats... but pretty horrible to this point with pitchers. I absolutely love the pitching depth from AA on down, but those guys are on track for 2010 best case. I would much rather the Brewers package bats that are blocked or in a position of surplus for pitching, rather than spend market value on a FA.... that's just my opinion and what I believe is in the best long term interests of the franchise.

 

It's obvious we don't agree on money going to back to the payroll ceiling debates on the major league forum, this topic, and the Gamel topic in the transaction thread in the minor league forum.... It seems that you feel money isn't an issue as long as they stay within budget and I'm of the opinion that money is always an issue when you're in the smallest market in the game, regardless of the current budget surplus or lack their of. Since all MLB contracts are garunteed, there's really no way to keep from paying a player the team made a mistake on unless they trade him. With the star players on the current team like Braun/Fielder/Yo, and more potential stars on the way in Parra, Gamel, Escobar, Salome/Lucroy I think you'd agree the team is going to have to make good decisions about who they sign, how much they sign them for, who they trade, and who they let walk in FA. I don't expect the Brewers to contend every year, I just want them to remain competitive, so from my point of view it doesn't make sense to pay your least best players the most money, regardless of the role they fill. I've posted my opinions on why I don't think FA pitching is a good market for the Brewers many times, and I've yet to see a compelling argument for signing a FA pitcher. The most common point is that the Brewers will have a hole in the rotation they need to fill with someone... which doesn't do it for me. Why would I want the Crew to sign Dave Bush for 10mil when they already have him at a bargain salary?

[kramnoj]

and I've yet to see a compelling argument for signing a FA pitcher. The most common point is that the Brewers will have a hole in the rotation they need to fill with someone... which doesn't do it for me.

 

You do it because it will improve your team. It's that simple. The reason that you don't find that compelling is because you are locked into Milwaukee being the smallest market and can't accept that they have mid-market spending power. You don't sign a Dave Bush talent pitcher for big money if you already have 5 of those. But you do sign Suppan if he will immediately be one of the top 5 SP in your rotation and if your budget allows you to do so.

 

Sure, if you can convince a GM to give up a #1 pitcher for an averagish SS and three minor leaguers that won't hurt you to give up, do it. But that doesn't really happen. It doesn't happen because every team knows that a cheap controlled #1 pitcher is extremely valuable, and won't give one up unless getting an incredible return.

[TheCrew07]

Which is exactly why I've repeatedly noted that #1 pitchers are not targets, nor should they be... Santana is Ervin Santana from LAA... Shields would be James Shields from TB... both are #2's that are 3rd best pitcher on their respective staffs, it doesn't take much effort to go around the league and look at the SP rotation for each team. I've also said repeatedly that I would rather have 5 #2's than a 1, a 3, and 3 #5's... The step down from a 1 to a 2 isn't all that great, I see #2's as the best value for the dollar. Sure a FA pitcher may make the team better next year... what about year 2, 3, and 4? Why rush to fill a hole now that may be inconsequential in the future? Basically that's exactly what a FA pitcher does, it ensures that we'll have 3 pitchers in the 4/5 range locked in for the next 2 years. We already have Suppan and Bush, why add a 3rd pitcher with limited upside for 4 years? Is that pitcher going to be so much better than McClung/Villy that he's worth the extra money for that 1 season? All that does is block any of the younger pitchers that step up in 2010. Targeting a younger pitcher solidifies the rotation for a couple of years and would allow Jeffress to replace Bush and Braddock/Periard/whomever to replace Suppan.

 

I don't refuse to accept that the Brewers have some buying power, it's that I'm concerned with the long term health of the franchise. The Brewers had over 110 million in debt when Mark A bought them, the team needs to continue to retire debt. Furthermore, the Brewers are only a mid market spender if attendence stays over 2 million a year, I'm not willing to bet that every year the Crew is going to draw like they have this year, I don't feel that's realistic. It would be great if things stay as they are, I'm just not sure they will. Maybe Z moves on to a GM job, maybe Mark A flips the team for a profit... I just don't see planning the franchise around the best case or worse scenario, planning to have a max payroll every year is a plan to fail financially. All it takes is a couple of key injuries and a season can be lost, there are no garuntees in sport. Again I never said I'm not into spending money, I'm just not into spending on FA pitchers who are declining, and most FA pitchers in the Brewer's price range will be over 30 years old and on the backside of their careers.

 

Hardy is not an averagish SS, statistically he has 3rd highest OPS of SS that have 400 ABs or more this season, only Ramirez and Reyes have had better seasons. If you include all players that have played a game at SS this season he's 12th overall. Yea he lost a step after the ankle injury, but he's steady in the field and productive at the plate. An unproven and character risk in Hamilton was enough to get Cinci Volquez, deals for young pitchers are certainly possible, and I'd much rather try to aquire the next Volquez than sign Burnette or Lowe.

 

I'm not sure how else to explain my position as I'm unsure if you're grasping the core idea I'm promoting, I don't have the vocabulary to put into words exactly what I think about subjects. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[kramnoj]

are #2's that are 3rd best pitcher on their respective staffs, it doesn't take much effort to go around the league and look at the SP rotation for each team.

 

You think that just because a team has a surplus of cheap young talent that they will trade it away? The Hardy led package wouldn't be enough to get either of those two players. This season from Hardy isn't enough to move him from averagish. He is basically average defensively. If he's the best player in a package, he's not good enough to get a #2 cheap pitcher in return. Hamilton had the talent to be a MVP, and it was obviously a good trade. Hardy is not MVP material.

 

Sure a FA pitcher may make the team better next year... what about year 2, 3, and 4? Why rush to fill a hole now that may be inconsequential in the future? Basically that's exactly what a FA pitcher does, it ensures that we'll have 3 pitchers in the 4/5 range locked in for the next 2 years. We already have Suppan and Bush, why add a 3rd pitcher with limited upside for 4 years?

 

Only spend the money to sign a market deal for a pitcher that you feel will be worth it. If you are right, and your young talent progresses faster than expected, you can trade away your surplus veteran pitchers. We aren't locked into Bush. If he isn't worth his salary to the Brewers in a year, trade him or cut him.

 

Furthermore, the Brewers are only a mid market spender if attendence stays over 2 million a year, I'm not willing to bet that every year the Crew is going to draw like they have this year, I don't feel that's realistic.

 

There's no reason to think that this town won't come out to watch a competitive team year after year. One of the ways to keep a team competitive is to sign FAs to bridge the gap when the home grown talent isn't ready. One of the ways to lose fans is to not spend available money and not put the best team on the field that you can. Then you lose the goodwill of the town and have to wait to build it up again.

 

I'm not sure how else to explain my position as I'm unsure if you're grasping the core idea I'm promoting,

 

What makes you think I don't understand it? I just don't agree with the premise, and think that part of your premise is based on unrealistic expectations about getting cheap young talent without giving up anything that hurts. If anything, I think I value cheap talent more, because I'm not eager to trade it away just because there is a surplus in a given year.

[DonMoney4Mgr]

Gallardo

Bush

Parra

Suppan

McClung

Back to sub-500 with this rotation.

[ILuvDaBush]

A player of Hardy's caliber is definitely worth more than the value of Josh Hamilton from a year ago. When the Rangers traded their "A-Ball" pitcher for Hamilton, he was considered to be a cheap OF with a high ceiling, but injury-prone and with major red flags about his character. Now...well it would be interesting to see if both teams would still make the deal. As for the attendance, I would hope we would continue to surpass 2 million people, but with the state of the economy, nothing is certain. In the end, as I continue to expound, we will be a contender, even if we make no big acquisition to our rotation. YoGa is a very good pitcher, as is Parra. Honestly, I would rather have YoGa/Parra than Carpenter/Wainwright for next year. Bush and McClung are the wild cards, while Suppan can be depended upon to take the ball every fifth day and give the offense a good chance at the W. No worries, my fellow Brewer faithful.

[kramnoj]

Tbadder wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gallardo

Bush

Parra

Suppan

McClung

 

Back to sub-500 with this rotation.

 

That's a bit too simplistic. If you look at St Louis this year or the teams in the West, that rotation would project to be similar. Obviously the Brewers would need to improve their offense and defense to try and be a 90 Win team with that rotation, but they should be a team that is a little above .500 and able to compete for the playoffs if things go their way.

 

A player of Hardy's caliber is definitely worth more than the value of Josh Hamilton from a year ago.

 

A year ago Hardy was a player who had missed time over each of the previous 3 seasons and his best season was being a league average hitter, and he was no more than an average SS defensively. Hamilton obviously had his issues, but he was the first pick of the draft, had done well in a few minor league seasons and had put up a 131 OPS+ while playing most of his games in CF. He was obviously a risk, but his ceiling even a year ago was much higher than Hardy's.

 

Hardy could certainly bring a good pitcher in return (Orlando Cabrera for Jon Garland), I just think it's unrealistic to think he will get a cheap young front of the line starter if he's the best player coming from the Brewers.

[Postseason2006]

Which is exactly why I've repeatedly noted that #1 pitchers are not targets, nor should they be... Santana is Ervin Santana from LAA... Shields would be James Shields from TB... both are #2's that are 3rd best pitcher on their respective staffs,

We could've had Santana had not Melvin wanted major league players in return for Carlos Lee. If we had Ervin now, this rotation might've won us a few more games.

[PeaveyFury]

We could've had Santana had not Melvin wanted major league players in return for Carlos Lee.

 

Link? Otherwise, that's just speculation.

[trwi7]

Link? Otherwise, that's just speculation.

While it doesn't give Ervin Santana's name, we do know that Melvin took the Rangers offer because they offered major league players.

 

Several teams showed interest in Lee, including Detroit, Oakland, the Los Angeles Angels, St. Louis, Houston and Minnesota. But Melvin said the only other concrete offers he received involved getting minor-league prospects in exchange.

Though he gave up his most productive player, Melvin said the fact that he held out for major-leaguers in return showed he wasn't waving the white flag on the Brewers' playoff hopes.

"This was the best deal we could make," Melvin said. "It gives us the chance to continue to run a good big-league lineup out there. If we had done any of the other deals, you'd think we were giving up on this season."

 

The Tigers dangled top pitching prospect Humberto Sanchez, whose sore elbow concerned the Brewers. Melvin said the Angels refused to part with their top-level minor-leaguers.

[Postseason2006]

I don't know where the link is now, but it was reported two years ago but Melvin wanted players ready now. I know you can find it in the MJS where it says Anaheim wanted Lee and was in the running.

[PeaveyFury]

Melvin said the Angels refused to part with their top-level minor-leaguers.

 

Which almost certainly would have included Ervin Santana.

[trwi7]

Melvin said the Angels refused to part with their top-level minor-leaguers.

 

Which almost certainly would have included Ervin Santana.

 

He also said that he took the Rangers offer because they were major leaguers. He was talking out of both sides of his mouth. He took the deal because he got major league players and they didn't want to give up on the playoffs but then he says a team wouldn't give up their top level minor-leaguers.

And you couldn't even call Santana a minor leaguer at the time we traded Lee. He threw 133.2 innings in 2005 and over 200 the year we traded Lee.

 

 

[PeaveyFury]

He also said that he took the Rangers offer because they were major leaguers. He was talking out of both sides of his mouth. He took the deal because he got major league players and they didn't want to give up on the playoffs but then he says a team wouldn't give up their top level minor-leaguers.

 

Why do they have to be exclusive of each other. It could certainly be that "this was the best deal they could make" BECAUSE the Angels weren't offering their top level minor leaguers.

 

The point remains, Postseason is trying to claim something as fact that is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation without a link. The one that actually was provided said that the Angels weren't offering their top minor leaguers. If he wants to claim that the Brewers turned down a chance at Santana, he needs to provide something factual.

[Postseason2006]

Santana was not a minor leaguer and I remember clearly about Santana and the Brewers did not want him(Santana). They wanted a couple minor leaguers in their system.

[trwi7]

Why do they have to be exclusive of each other. It could certainly be that "this was the best deal they could make" BECAUSE the Angels weren't offering their top level minor leaguers.

I have a hard time believing a deal with Kevin Mench was the best deal a team could make. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[PeaveyFury]

Santana was not a minor leaguer and I remember clearly about Santana and the Brewers did not want him(Santana).

 

Again, link? If that was the case, it should be out there somewhere.

[Postseason2006]

I heard it straight from the talk show here in La Crosse on WKTY 580 when it happened. This included speculating comments from Melvin at the time.

[PeaveyFury]

So it was reported on a talkshow in LaCrosse, but never made it anywhere else in the media. That seems like it was probably more of a discussion/speculation of what they might have been able to get instead of the Cordero deal, including speculation that they could have had Santana. Without anything saying that he was available, or offered, or that the Brewers turned it down, how can you present 'The Brewers could have had Ervin Santana but passed' as fact?

[Postseason2006]

And how can you say as stated above that Santana was not included? I know what I heard and it was also on the Old Style Tailgator show.

 

I also remember a thread on here about the same situation a couple years ago.