Top Notch Starters at Deadline

[lcbj68c]

Lackey would be outstanding, but I think I'd like to wait for someone we can control through 2010.

 

That's my sentiment, which is why I'm not keen on Bedard. While Sabathia did what we wanted him to, having a 3 month rental was not a lot of fun. That's why Buchholz and Peavy were so interestingt to me. I'd like the ability to have somebody in the fold for longer than just the 2nd half of 2009. During last night's game, I thought, maybe we are sellers this season and should be looking to build the best team we can for 2010, still not sure that shouldn't be the case, though hard sell on most fans when you are sitting in 1st place.

[Invader3K]

They should absolutely be doing everything to "go for it" this year, and next year. The next "rebuilding" period will have to come soon enough. No need to rush to get to that point. No one is saying they should sell the farm, but if they could get a great young pitcher like Buchholz who they can control for several years, that would be stellar. Imagine having Yo and Clay anchoring the rotation for several years. That would be ideal, I think. It would also hopefully mean that the next down period will be much shorter than what we've been accustomed to historically as Brewers fans.

[Hate those Rodents]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9688414/Red-Sox-reliever-drawing-interest-from-several-teams

 

Bad news imho, that we might be focusing on a rental in Bedard. Also talk of Hardy and Escobar interest and talk on the dilemna we've all hashed out about that.

[TheCrew07]

I would have rather acquired him than Wright for example, and I believe I posted that at the time.

Sure, but you weren't going to get Nieman for an A ball LF like we did for Wright. Why do you think it was a buy low oppurtunity at all? The guy they moved was Edwin Jackson, in hindsight, he would have been a great addition.

 

I would have given up more him, TB doesn't need pitching.

[Oldcity]

I don't think Bedard is bad news. He'd cost less in prospects than Peavy/Buchholz/Cain/Lee but would probably be just as good this season.

[Teatoe993]

I'd think Bedard would do better than any of those guys. He's putting up really great numbers this year. Other than Greinke, I think he's the best starter in the AL this year.

[Hate those Rodents]

I have a feeling JasonZ would fleece us a bit, knowing we're desperate for a good starting arm. I also feel he knows of nuggets in our system that Doug might not be as high on. I don't know. I just really would be skeptical about giving up prospects for a rental to Seattle. I think it could look really bad in 2-3 years. I think he might be able to land a more productive collection of MLB talent than Cleveland will out of the CC trade. But that's just me...

[Invader3K]

If we make the playoffs again this season because of acquiring a guy like Bedard, I wouldn't really care too much how it looks in 2-3 years. One of the selling points on loading up the system with prospects was that we could trade some of them for positions of need. Right now starting pitching is a definite position of need for the Brewers. Plus, while Jack Z might be able to pick up the odd nugget that ends up being good, I can't see Melvin getting "fleeced" by anyone, former scouting director or not.

[Hate those Rodents]

Thinking out loud here, what worries me is if Jack does the deal for a foursome of, say, Brewer/Salome/Gillespie/Periard. He buys low on Salome and Gillespie and gets two others that most of us are not thinking a lot about. Maybe something else comes our way with Bedard, but I really worry about trading with the guy, who undoubtedly will look to stockpile any underachieving talent we have that he feels/knows will break out.

[lcbj68c]

I don't think Bedard is bad news. He'd cost less in prospects than Peavy/Buchholz/Cain/Lee but would probably be just as good this season.

Just curious why you put Buchholz in the mix with the other 3. I dont think Buchholz would cost heavy in prospects. He's just a AAA prospect himself. Not an established "Ace", or even #2 like the other 3 guys in that grouping. Escobar (blocked AAA stud) for Buchholz (blocked AAA stud) straight up seems about right to me.

[TheCrew07]

One of the selling points on loading up the system with prospects was that we could trade some of them for positions of need. Right now starting pitching is a definite position of need for the Brewers. Plus, while Jack Z might be able to pick up the odd nugget that ends up being good, I can't see Melvin getting "fleeced" by anyone, former scouting director or not.

Didn't we already make a move for a rental last season? Didn't we dump prospects for Linebrink? Melvin has been making deals with prospects. I realize you don't care about the future as much as you want to win today, to each his own, but at some point it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge that buying rentals fills a hole today, but leaves a hole tomorrow... Had we acquired a more lasting solution for the rotation instead of Sabathia we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. I'm not sold Sabathia was the only way the team was making the playoffs, maybe a different move has the dominos falling a different way... if it's fair to play the "what if" game with Sheets staying healthy, then it's fair to play the "what if" game with a different trade.

 

I say again, look at how the relatively new regime in TB has gone about building their pitching staff through trades, with Price and an effective Kazmir (hopefully) that rotation is top notch, and 2 of their starters were acquired via trades. At some point people are going to have to get past the notion that prospects are valueless and the only players worth acquiring are "big name" FAs or players like Cain whom are consistently being tossed around as trade bait.

 

X mentioned Edwin Jackson, I would have been fine with him instead of Looper (I had no idea Jackson would to pitch to an ERA under 3 thus far though), I would have liked Melvin to go after depth like Niemann as opposed to cast offs like Wright and Green. I remember names from the draft, but mostly I stumble across guys bouncing around MiLB.com looking at the various leader boards for each league. It doesn't take very long to look at K, BB, IP, and WHIP to quickly do K/9, BB/9, and K:BB as all of the lists are sortable by clicking on the stat you want to sort by, I also use Baseball Reference quite a bit. The point is, there are plenty of possibilities out there than obvious guys who are also the most expensive to acquire, and at this point I favor lasting solutions as most of our better arms are 2-3 years away yet.

 

For example, I'm as excited about Zach Braddock as I have been any pitcher coming through the system, but even if he's as good as I think he is he'll still need 2 or 3 years to build up IP to the point where he's ready to step into the rotation. He's been injured (misdiagnosed) enough that he's never pitched more than 72 innings in a season (by the way, depending on the site he's sometimes listed as William as that's his true first name).

 

Our top MiLB Pitchers and their most IP in a season

 

Jeffress - 100 in 2008 (not sure exactly, 94 in the regular season and I forget how many IP he got in the AFL)

Arnett - 108 in college this season, no idea how much action he'll see in the minors

Cody - 117 in 2007

Anundsen - 145 in 2008 (I was surprised by this number, I wish we had an accurate first hand report of his velocity)

Rogers - 98 in 2005

Rivas - 120 in 2008

Butler - 126 in 2007

Bowman - 139 in 2008 (92 in college, 47 for Mil)

 

The closest player we have IP wise is Anundsen, though I gotta believe that with Cody being 25 they'd be willing to push him a little as well if need be. Bulter might also figure into the mix as he's already 24 so if he continues his success they might be inclined to push him a tad harder as well Bowman could be a sleeper if he keeps having success as he moves up. A general reminder is that the standard practice is to increase workload about 20-25 IP per season for most prospects.

[wibadgers23]

If we have to trade Escobar or any other of our top prospects to get another rental player like Bedard, then count me out. Last year was fun getting CC, but I don't want to see us trading away top prospects for rental players every year.

[logan82]

If we have to trade Escobar or any other of our top prospects to get another rental player like Bedard, then count me out. Last year was fun getting CC, but I don't want to see us trading away top prospects for rental players every year.

I agree. I think we need all of our top prospects to cover FA losses of everyday players in the next 3 years. LaPorta was expendable because he was kind of redundant and played corner outfield spot, which can be filled pretty easily.

[Milltownhooker]

Bedard is extremely fragile. That should certainly downgrade his value some.

[BrewerProspectus]

The Brewers will not have to give up Escobar or Gamel or hell, even Parra, for Bedard. He's nowhere near the pitcher that CC was last year and both of those prospects are at least on par with LaPorta....and neither are viewed as "available" (or even as disposable) as LaPorta was. Escobar's not going anywhere.

 

Bedard will likely command a package surrounding Jeffress; while Bedard's another "rental player," that would probably be palatable in terms of the long-term impact of sacrificing prospects for another 1/2 season rental. Jeffress is years from contributing at the MLB level, so the two picks we'd get from Bedard's FA departure may not be much more delayed in reaching the majors (particularly if the Brewers were to draft an Arnette type). IF the Brewers can land Lee with a Jeffress/Parra/Salome type package w/out having to sacrifice top tier major-league ready prospects (i.e. Gamel/Escobar), I'd do that in a heartbeat; but I'm not sure the Indians would take anything less than Escobar/Gamel.

 

Bedard is probably the highest impact and least expensive option of all the available top tier pitchers. The difference in the packages the Brewers would have to offer to land Lee vs. that of Bedard is likely to be too much to offset the preference for non-rental player.

[Invader3K]

Crew07 makes some good points...but I guess I should have clarified that I was referring more to some mid-tier or lower level prospects, which I'd be more than willing to give up, even if it does take away some depth (but not all of it). I can't see Melvin trading an Escobar or Gamel for a half season of a pitcher at this point, Erik Bedard or not.

[Oldcity]

I don't think Bedard is bad news. He'd cost less in prospects than Peavy/Buchholz/Cain/Lee but would probably be just as good this season.

Just curious why you put Buchholz in the mix with the other 3. I dont think Buchholz would cost heavy in prospects. He's just a AAA prospect himself. Not an established "Ace", or even #2 like the other 3 guys in that grouping. Escobar (blocked AAA stud) for Buchholz (blocked AAA stud) straight up seems about right to me.

 

I figured Buchholz would cost more because he's under control for several years, while Bedard is only through this season. He's also dirt cheap compared to every other pitcher I mentioned, which would make him pricier in terms of prospects as well. Escobar-Buchholz is probably fairly even, but the goal in this case is finding someone without giving up Escobar or Gamel. You can do that if Bedard is the target.

[PeaveyFury]

Didn't we already make a move for a rental last season? Didn't we dump prospects for Linebrink? Melvin has been making deals with prospects. I realize you don't care about the future as much as you want to win today, to each his own, but at some point it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge that buying rentals fills a hole today, but leaves a hole tomorrow..

 

But that hole is partially filled at worst by filling the system back up with 2 high draft picks for each of the players you mentioned the Brewers trading prospects for, which you should at least acknowledge as well.

[logan82]

I think the timing of the Linebrink and CC deals were such that we gave up players that were lower in the system or redundant even if they were top prospects for us. We didn't need them any sooner than the draft picks we would see in return. Now if we traded one of our top prospects, I think we would be giving up a guy we are going to need in the next 3 years and I don't think we can draft a guy nor did we this year, that will be ready in that time frame. The only exception is one of Salome/Lucroy.

[Hate those Rodents]

Yep, I think the opportunity to trade Hardy for Bucholtz is probably done. And I say that realizing many still wouldn't do the trade on this forum. At this point, we are probably only looking at a rental, and I am not convinced Bedard will be as cheap as some are insinuating. But I am wrong my share of the time.

[TheCrew07]

But that hole is partially filled at worst by filling the system back up with 2 high draft picks for each of the players you mentioned the Brewers trading prospects for, which you should at least acknowledge as well.

1) No it doesn't, not if you trade pitching for a rental, because it takes so long to develop pitchers... best case scenario any draft pick we'd get this season wouldn't be ready till 2013, we'd get picks no higher than 16 and it's rare for talent to moe through MiLB in 3 years or less, and there's no gaurantee what round the selections would be in, with the exception of the comp picks.

 

2) You're assuming they hit on the draft picks... I will say that I like the CC selections better than the Linebrink selections. However, the only selection of those four that has a chance to reach MLB in the next couple of years is Frederickson. So while you might be able to replace depth, you also definitely push it farther away from Milwaukee, quality of the prospects aside. I guess Davis has an outside chance of making it in 3 years but I wouldn't count on it. Dykstra and Walla will progress one step at a time since there's no reason to rush them and I don't think Dykstra is all that good to begin with.

[PeaveyFury]

1) No it doesn't, not if you trade pitching for a rental, because it takes so long to develop pitchers... best case scenario any draft pick we'd get this season wouldn't be ready till 2013, we'd get picks no higher than 16 and it's rare for talent to moe through MiLB in 3 years or less, and there's no gaurantee what round the selections would be in, with the exception of the comp picks.

 

But the point is that you're trying to make it sound as if the Brewers were trading away prospects and getting merely rental players in return- you simply HAVE to acknowledge that it's not the case, as they're replacing the prospects with additional talent in the system, though as you say it's at lower levels in development than what was traded away.

 

2) You're assuming they hit on the draft picks

 

You're assuming the players they traded away continue to develop.....

[Never Outhustled]

No it doesn't, not if you trade pitching for a rental, because it takes so long to develop pitchers... best case scenario any draft pick we'd get this season wouldn't be ready till 2013, we'd get picks no higher than 16 and it's rare for talent to moe through MiLB in 3 years or less, and there's no gaurantee what round the selections would be in, with the exception of the comp picks.

The players we got for the 2 pitchers we gave up are higher ranked prospects. We improved our system by trading for a rental.

 

 

You're assuming they hit on the draft picks... I will say that I like the CC selections better than the Linebrink selections. However, the only selection of those four that has a chance to reach MLB in the next couple of years is Frederickson. So while you might be able to replace depth, you also definitely push it farther away from Milwaukee, quality of the prospects aside.

Why is it OK to ignore that Brantley has been horrible this year. It may turn out to be genius to trade him if he doesn't develop. He's pushing himself farther from the majors. Steve Garrison is down with shoulder surgery, a terrible thing for a guy with suspect velocity. If we keep all our prospects, we'll be keeping a bunch of guys that wash out.

 

We've developed more prospects in the mean time. Now that were established, we don't need to break in 3 guys a year anymore. We broke in Gamel this year, we'll likely break in a catcher next year. We have an extra catcher, and an extra 3B. We'll deal more. We'll get more comp picks. our drafts will produce more prospects if we get extra picks each year.

[TheCrew07]

I think you're missing the point about the "hole".... the hole remains on the big league club until a prospect gets there to fill it. Whom do we have that's going to do that in the immediate future? Cody? Bulter? Neither is a top of the rotation kind of guy at this point. We acquired Sabathia to fill a hole, once the season was the hole still existed, the hole still exists in the rotation today as Parra's struggles continue. Yo has hit the wall here a little bit lately as well... trying to plug holes 1 year at a time just doesn't work very because the team never gets over the top at that position. If we're talking about C... well who cares as long as the player is tolerable... if we're talking 2 of the top 3 spots in the rotation that's a different matter entirely.

 

As far as the prospects go, I assumed the best case scenario for both sets of prospects, it gets way too murky to discuss any other way. Quality wise I think we're doing okay, I like Frederickson's upside more than Inman... Dykstra is kind of a meh pick in my opinion but he's toolsy, Garrison will miss the season due to injury and Thatcher continues to be up and down for SD. Davis/Walla hopefully turn out to comparable to LaPorta/Brantley, I wish Davis would sign and start out with Helena right away.

[TheCrew07]

X.. I'm not sure how you can claim we've improved the system. I'm not ignoring Brantley's struggles at AAA, I'm just not sure how relevant that is to the hypothetical discussion we're having or I would have pointed it and then bagged on Dykstra as well. Inman. Thatcher, Brantley, and LaPorta all made it as far as AAA and Garrison would have opened the year in AAA if not for the injury... Frederickson could blow out his arm tomorrow and be done, Dykstra, Walla, and Davis could Josh Murray us... like I said, I assumed the best case scenario fpr discussion purposes... that both sets of prospects continue to develop, it removes all of the "what if" scenarios that are impossible to debate.

 

I will agree that we have higher upside in the system between the picks, but upside doesn't equal production, not yet.

 

I'm not even attempting to debate the prospect issue, it was a side issue, I'm debating the best way to fill a hole on the Major League Roster for a team like Milwaukee. We're a year away in an absolute perfect world from a SP with top of the rotation talent being MLB ready and capable of 180 innings, and I'd rather not push Arnett, Jeffress, or Braddock that hard to get there, even if the organization thinks their arm could handle the workload. So realistically we're more like 2 or 3 years away, but then we'll have a windfall of arms... what's the best way to bridge that gap? 3 rental players? 3 Loopers? Or 1 acquisition for a SP with some longevity to his service in Milwaukee? What's the best way to improve the talent level in the rotation while we wait on the pile of arms at A+ and A ball? Best case scenario we get 60 percent of a season out of rental so we'd need to figure 1.2 seasons of a league average or worse pitcher in the rotation if we go the rental player route, which would mean starting each season with Yo and 4 starters of 3/4/5 quality at best.