Brewers in front with Nationals for Carl Pavano?

[Beast Light]

The farm system is mediocre at best, so giving up a high pick for a 34 year old pitcher doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

I've got to agree with you. Aside from the contract aspect, I'm not sure if the Brewers farm system is in a position to be parting with 1st round picks.

 

If Melvin signs Pavano to the 3 year $30MM contract that has been discussed, I will have lost all faith in him. If Mark A is behind it, I will have lost all faith in him too. Seriously, what is there to like about this guy? I couldn't think of a pitcher in baseball with more red flags.

 

Only time will tell but from what I have been reading on websites, another team is going to have to swoop in soon to save us from making this deal.

 

[Warning Track Power]

If he is signed to a 3year $10MM+ deal, I cannot honestly picture a more realistic nightmare scenario 2011 Brewers offseason. I'd rather empty the top layers of the farm system and get a Garza than have this happen. Thinking of the everyday lineup, assuming Weeks is re-signed for a few years, there wouldn't be a free agent until when? Braun is signed through '15, Hart was just extended, McGehee isn't arby-eligble, Cain/Lucroy/Escobar were all rookies last year and Gamel would be a rookie this year. We don't really need hitting high level hitting prospects right now. We do need pitching. Good pitching. Not a $10MM+ #4. We just got rid of one of those. Having a Garza would allow for us to have yet another player under contract for multiple years.

[Warning Track Power]

Per Phil Rogers twitter, we won't go over 2 years and pavano camp looking for three

 

http://twitter.com/ChiTri...status/12728443598807040

The last time a Chicago reporter tweeted something this good was when Roenicke was hired. Please be right Rogers.

[Bench Coach]

Not Saying that I want Pavano.....Because I really don't. However, I am afraid that our 4th starter will be Narveson, with our 5th being someone like Cappy. I like Cappy, but would prefer he was our 6th starter. I just have this fear that Doug will not pull the trigger on another trade.

[MNBrew]

Giving up 3-4 of our best prospects -- who've already risen to the top of the team's prospect lists -- for Garza is something I could see Melvin & Co. acknowledging as too steep of a price. Sure, Garza's a more appealing SP. But if the price is way too steep in a Garza trade, then the 3rd year isn't the worst price to pay for Pavano, regardless of how several around here are sure it's the ultimate sign of impending doom.

 

I sure see this as Melvin & Co. choosing the alternative of possibly of signing the 2nd-best FA SP for the 2nd year in a row. That's not all bad, esp. considering we have the room to make the move in both cases. Sure, Wolf was no John Lackey and Pavano is no Lee. But signing both would only have cost us a single prospect -- our 2nd round pick in '11 -- that's not the worst price to pay compared to the 3 or so prospects it'd take to get Garza.

 

The other alternative is keeping all our prospects (by not overpaying for Garza in trade assets), not signing Pavano, and having no 2nd new SP that we so greatly need. Fear the Pavano signing all you want, but having watched the guy up here all last year, I believe the Brewers would be worse off if they didn't get him & didn't have another new solid arm for the rotation.

 

And IF (big "if") Pavano pitches like he did last year, he's a #2 or at worst a #3, not a #4.

[brewtank34]

2 year deal for $22 million or less with a mutual option on the 3rd year and I'd be extremely happy - I think some people need to let the Suppan thing go, Pavano is a much better pitcher than Suppan ever was.

 

Even if he regresses a bit, the move the NL should help his numbers.

I've never understood this argument. How exactly would this help him, or the Brewers, win more games?

 

Yes he will not be facing DH's but he also will not have one providing him with run support either.

 

I can understand the argument in favor of AL pitchers coming to the NL and having better seasons, and the argument is mainly centered around the NL not having the DH. However, in the case of the Brewers, this arguement doesn't mean squat for one simple reason....Miller Park. Miller Park is a hitter friendly ball park. Always has, always will. Pavano coming to the NL will benefit him a bit, but playing a majority of his games at Miler Park won't.

I don't want to compare Pavano to Suppan for skill set....but you gotta start asking yourselves why is it that every "good" pitcher that Melvin brings in (and the majority of posters here get somewhat excited about) fail in the long run. Is it that Mike Maddux stinks? Is it because Rick Peterson doesn't know how to manage a pitching rotation? You look at Maddux and what he did prior to the Crew and post Crew. He just took a Texas Ranger team who was a longtime pitching rotation nightmare and took them to the World Series.

 

I would like to argue that you bring in Dave Duncun as the Brewers pitching coach and he would look like a minor league pitching coach in comparision to his days at St. Louis. Miller Park is Evil for pitchers!

 

My point is that Pavano, while a decent option to assist our rotation will eventually fail like Soup, Looper, Davis, Sheets, Bush, etc...and it's all because of Miller Park.

 

 

 

[RockCoCougars]

Melvin signing Pavano to a multi-year contract would be akin to Matt Millen drafting a wide receiver in the first round. In my view it would be worse than the Suppan signing because of how badly they were burned by that deal and the fact that they just shed that albatross of a contract.

 

 

[colbyjack]

I'm not a huge Pavano fan, so I hope it's true that the Brewers won't go beyond 2 years. Losing a 2nd round pick for the guy doesn't seem right either.

 

I do find it interesting that they won't go beyond 2 years. They went 3 with Wolf last year, and have Marcum for the next 2 as well. I'm curious if the Brewers are giving themselves a 2-year window to compete, and think clancy's idea to try and extend Fielder for 2 more years sounds better and better if that's the case.

[Beast Light]

Don't like the 3 year contract at all - but the "he will regress because he is 35" argument is pretty weak if you ask me.

Just out of curiosity, when does assumed regression due to age become a valid argument in your opinion? 37? 39? 41?

 

 

[Warning Track Power]

I sure see this as Melvin & Co. choosing the alternative of possibly of signing the 2nd-best FA SP for the 2nd year in a row.

 

And IF (big "if") Pavano pitches like he did last year, he's a #2 or at worst a #3, not a #4.

Just because he is the 2nd best FA SP doesn't mean he's worth the contract we'd be signing him to. Nor do I consider this a victory to have signed the 2nd best FA SP two years in a row. Lee and Halladay were both traded last year. Wouldn't you rather have the 2nd best SP traded in 2010 (pick one) than the 2nd best SP FA (Wolf)?

 

Pavano has pitched like a #2 twice in his 12 year career. 5 seasons ERA over 5. 3 seasons ERA over 4.64.

[tyguy20204]

.I do find it interesting that they won't go beyond 2 years. They went 3 with Wolf last year, and have Marcum for the next 2 as well. I'm curious if the Brewers are giving themselves a 2-year window to compete, and think clancy's idea to try and extend Fielder for 2 more years sounds better and better if that's the case.

Pardon me, as I haven't seen clancy's post on this topic, but it seems completely unreasonable to me that Fielder would accept a stand-alone contract extension for two years. Why would he do that? As I see it, the only reason would be to increase his value after having an off-year this most recent season. Which would be all fine and good except that a premium player such as Prince should have no problem getting a club to put an opt-out clause in his contract, if he's that worried about it. But besides that, he's performed well enough to have earned a monster contract, there's no need for him to continue doing it for two years. In that situation the risk would outweigh any marginal benefits.

[BrandonBurns]

I'm not a huge Pavano fan, so I hope it's true that the Brewers won't go beyond 2 years. Losing a 2nd round pick for the guy doesn't seem right either.

 

I do find it interesting that they won't go beyond 2 years. They went 3 with Wolf last year, and have Marcum for the next 2 as well. I'm curious if the Brewers are giving themselves a 2-year window to compete, and think clancy's idea to try and extend Fielder for 2 more years sounds better and better if that's the case.

I don't think a 2nd round pick is going to be as valuable as it normally would considering the supplemental round is going to be ridiculously long next June draft.

[Hate those Rodents]

It'd be interesting to see if Prince would accept 2/40....

[tyguy20204]

There's no reason he would, that's what I'm saying. Unless you can come up with one?

[ListachRides]

Pavano makes decent sense on a 2-year deal, and I could live with a 3rd-year buyout (which, if we sign him, seems like the best-case scenario right now). I would fully expect him to outpitch Wolf and Narvy next year and add maybe 2 wins to our outlook. I've got reservations about it, and hate giving up the draft pick, but don't understand what all the vitriol is about. Unless the contract is much worse than I expect it will hardly be crippling. All of the true impact players fall out of the Brewers' price range regardless of whether the Brewers sign the Wolf's and Pavanos of the world. If we didn't spend the money on Pavano, it's unlikely we'd be able to use it for anything but next year's version of Pavano.

[Warning Track Power]

Pavano makes decent sense on a 2-year deal, and I could live with a 3rd-year buyout (which, if we sign him, seems like the best-case scenario right now). I would fully expect him to outpitch Wolf and Narvy next year and add maybe 2 wins to our outlook. I've got reservations about it, and hate giving up the draft pick, but don't understand what all the vitriol is about. Unless the contract is much worse than I expect it will hardly be crippling. All of the true impact players fall out of the Brewers' price range regardless of whether the Brewers sign the Wolf's and Pavanos of the world. If we didn't spend the money on Pavano, it's unlikely we'd be able to use it for anything but next year's version of Pavano.

My vitriol is that I think we need to spend that money more wisely. I understand any trade for a Garza type requires prospects be traded first and foremost, however, as a small market team, the Brewers cannot afford to lock down $10MM on a pitcher who quite frankly would open the season as the fourth guy in the rotation. I'd much rather spend that plus whatever extra millions it would cost to lock down that Garza-type acquired in a trade.

 

To simplify my point, I think that Pavano helps ensure respectability i.e. a .500 record. A Garza-type helps win the Division, Pennant, World Series.

 

[TheCrew]

Don't like the 3 year contract at all - but the "he will regress because he is 35" argument is pretty weak if you ask me.

Just out of curiosity, when does assumed regression due to age become a valid argument in your opinion? 37? 39? 41?

Just regression or the level of regression that some are implying that Pavano is going to have in 2011? I can't say I blame anyone, but I think too many posters on here are scared off of FA pitchers that are in their 30's because of the bad taste that Soup left in all of our mouths.

 

If a guy is coming off a fantastic season at 41 - why should we assume he can't perform at a high level again at age 42? Perfect example is hoffman - many thought he was done in 2009 and many Brewer fans didn't like the signing and he went out and shocked even those that liked the signing. Then he shocked us again this past season - I think we all thought he'd regress, but nobody thought he'd completely fall of a cliff.

 

Every player is different and they all hit a wall with performance at a different age. Contract length for older players is an entirely different beast and I don't think Pavano is worth the risk of a 3 year deal at all - He's been good over the past 2 seasons, but not good enough to warrant taking that risk.

 

Pavano should be solid this year and even he does regress slightly, if he can put up a 4.00-4.25 ERA and eat up close to 200 innings it would be huge for this team.

[TheCrew]

Not to start an argument, but my original response was made to the comment "Even if he regresses a bit, the move the NL should help his numbers".

 

If he regresses, he regresses. Playing in the NL will not allow him to overcome his regression and make him equally productive in terms of giving his team the same chance to win as when he played in the AL. Therefore, we can't use him switching to the NL as a risk mitigating factor as it pertains to a potential contract.

Your original response and subsequent responses also talked about wins quite a bit - which are pretty meaningless when it comes to pitchers and had nothing to do with my original post.

 

Not to be an ass, but again - if he regresses slightly, playing in the NL should offset that and he should be able to put up similar numbers as to what he did last year (assuming he stays healthy of course). If he can put those numbers up or anything even remotely close, that is an absolute huge upgrade for the #4 spot in the rotation.

 

A #4 pitcher with an era in the high 3's/low 4's? Yes, please.

 

I also never said the move to the NL is something that should factor into offering him a contract - was just pointing it out that the move to the NL should help his numbers slightly and should offset any regression due to age (unless he completely hits a wall of course) - It should give us an idea of what to expect from him in 2011, simple as that....... I think your reading far too much into it.

 

What should factor into offering him a contract - and ultimately the only thing - is his performance over the last few seasons and nothing else.

[Hate those Rodents]

What were the WAR's for Pavano and Garza last year? And does the same site predict the WAR's of each player for this coming season yet?

[wishicouldhit]

This isn’t particularly the logic that I want my team’s general manager using every year but….
The bullpen is above average, cheap, and improving. Except for first base, it is highly unlikely that Melvin will be shopping for new position players in the next 3 years. They have a large amount of their cap room available this year and for the following years. We desperately need starting pitchers for the next 2 years and have the money to spend now; so why not fill our only need with the best pitcher available. In addition, there are approximately5 better free agent pitchers than Pavano that may be available in 2012, all of which may require more $$$/yr.

[kramnoj]

They have a large amount of their cap room available this year and for the following years. We desperately need starting pitchers for the next 2 years and have the money to spend now; so why not fill our only need with the best pitcher available.

 

That is a compelling argument to get the best pitcher available. I have no faith in Pavano being that guy. The last time Pavano had a guaranteed contract for more than one year, he was only able to start 26 total games during the 4 year contract.

 

I think a 1/$15M offer with two individual vesting years at the same amount at 30 starts each year would be okay, but I would have no interest in guaranteeing 3 years. I also know that some team is going to be desperate enough to make the guaranteed offer and have no interest in the Brewers being that team.

[danzig6767]

Don't like the 3 year contract at all - but the "he will regress because he is 35" argument is pretty weak if you ask me.

Just out of curiosity, when does assumed regression due to age become a valid argument in your opinion? 37? 39? 41?

Just regression or the level of regression that some are implying that Pavano is going to have in 2011? I can't say I blame anyone, but I think too many posters on here are scared off of FA pitchers that are in their 30's because of the bad taste that Soup left in all of our mouths.

 

If a guy is coming off a fantastic season at 41 - why should we assume he can't perform at a high level again at age 42? Perfect example is hoffman - many thought he was done in 2009 and many Brewer fans didn't like the signing and he went out and shocked even those that liked the signing. Then he shocked us again this past season - I think we all thought he'd regress, but nobody thought he'd completely fall of a cliff.

 

Every player is different and they all hit a wall with performance at a different age. Contract length for older players is an entirely different beast and I don't think Pavano is worth the risk of a 3 year deal at all - He's been good over the past 2 seasons, but not good enough to warrant taking that risk.

Pavano should be solid this year and even he does regress slightly, if he can put up a 4.00-4.25 ERA and eat up close to 200 innings it would be huge for this team.

What makes you believe that if Pavano regressed, that 4.00-4.25 ERA is the worst case possibility? An ERA above 4.50 has been more the norm over his career than last season was and there is also the defense factor. Pavano doesn't get many strikeouts (only 117 in 221 innings last year) and thus the ball gets put in place a lot, not exactly a good thing given the poor defensive team that the Brewers are.

 

If Pavano was a Brewer next year, i'd put numbers of 4.00-4.25 ERA as the likely best case scenario, not worst case.

[Oldcity]

I like Pavano a lot, but he's a guy who's a great fit for a strong defensive team. He walks nobody, but he also doesn't strike out too many. The Twins' defense is a lot better than the Brewers'.

[igor67]

Frankly I'd rather they overpaid for Lee, atleast that way you've got a decent argument that you actually did something to try and build a championship group for a couple of years before the money sunk you.

[tyguy20204]

Frankly I'd rather they overpaid for Lee, atleast that way you've got a decent argument that you actually did something to try and build a championship group for a couple of years before the money sunk you.

Except that overpaying for Pavano = three years/$36 million. Overpaying for Lee = 7 years/160 million (and even with that there's no guarantee he would come to the Brewers).

I'll take Pavano, thank you very much. 36 million won't sink a team like the Brewers. 160 million will.