Brewers acquire Shaun Marcum for Brett Lawrie 1 for 1; 3/24/12 -- Jayson Stark article

[thebruce44]

Long gone are organizations that 'wing it' or whatever you are implying.

 

I'm not sure what 'wing it' means, but it's pretty clear that the Doug Melvin era is littered with checkers type moves while other GMs are playing chess. granted there are a lot of GMs who appear to be checker players that doesn't mean we shouldn't desire more from our GM

 

Well, two playoff appearances in a four season span must mean that the "checkers" strategy is working.

 

Why does everyone use winning as an excuse to discredit anything negative about this team or organization?

[Invader3K]

Well, I'm not using winning "as an excuse." I think this idea put out by a few very vocal posters that Melvin is just running the team by the seat of his pants is a rather silly one. Has he made mistakes? Sure. But I think overall his track record shows he is one of the better GMs in the game today. Not the best, but I would say he's a top ten GM.

[jjfanec]

 

Well, two playoff appearances in a four season span must mean that the "checkers" strategy is working.

 

Why does everyone use winning as an excuse to discredit anything negative about this team or organization?

 

Well when people act like our GM is way behind other GMs (checkers compared to chess) I think his track record of putting a winner on the field is fairly important. Winning is a lot more tangible than a lot of the "trades" Melvin could have done that are base off internet rumors like some people here use to bash Melvin. I dont think Melvin is a perfect GM by any means but he has done a solid job in Milwaukee.

[thebruce44]

Well, I'm not using winning "as an excuse." I think this idea put out by a few very vocal posters that Melvin is just running the team by the seat of his pants is a rather silly one. Has he made mistakes? Sure. But I think overall his track record shows he is one of the better GMs in the game today. Not the best, but I would say he's a top ten GM.

 

I understand that, but then why not say this in your original post instead of just pointing to winning. My comment certainly wasn't directed at just you, so please don't take it personally.

 

I swear though, one day someone is going to criticize the grounds crew for the outfield grass and someone is going to say "well, we won the division last year so they must be doing something right."

[monty57]

I think Melvin's done well as GM. However, I think that he'd like to win a championship before he's done, and there's a chance that this may lead to favoring "proven" over "potentially." Ten years ago this didn't matter so much, but retirement's looming, and it seems to me that he's now really hesitant to trust young players from the minors to play on a playoff-caliber team.

 

The recent article on Lawrie (the one saying he was glad he was traded) makes it look like there was really some bad blood between Lawrie and "the organization." Maybe it was to the point that he had to be traded, I don't know. For sake of discussion, let's assume that it was, and there wasn't an option other than trading him. Melvin chose to trade him for a proven good pitcher, and that helped us win the Central last season. We will get one more year out of Marcum, and it appears he will then walk and we will probably get nothing in return. Two years of Marcum for six years of Lawrie. That's something we know.

 

What we don't know is what other trade we could have made. Since other GM's made comments such as "I wish I'd have known Lawrie was available," I think it's safe to assume that other teams would have had interest. It is entirely possible that we could have traded our MLB-ready Top 50 position prospect for a MLB-ready Top 50 pitching prospect (or something similar). Maybe other dominos wouldn't have fallen the same if we had done this (maybe Greinke doesn't waive the no trade, maybe we don't win the Central, etc), or maybe they do. I remember Greinke saying holding on to Prince rather than trading him was the reason he decided to waive the no-trade clause, but maybe Marcum had something to do with it... we'll never know.

 

Melvin made the trade he did, and we won the division. Therefore, at least short-term I can say he did okay in the trade. Long-term, I think that when Lawrie's career is over, people will look back on this trade, will gloss over the Brewers making a playoff appearance, and will say that the Blue Jays got a steal. Lawrie's a Hall-of-Fame-potential type of talent and Marcum is not. Many prospects fail to reach their potential, and there's no way I'll say Lawrie will be a Hall of Fame player, but I will say with a high degree of certainty that Marcum will not.

 

Melvin chose the security of "proven good" over the possibility that Lawrie (or a young player he potentially could have been traded for) wouldn't live up to their potential. This doesn't make him an idiot, but moves like this and recent moves to bring in and retain high-priced players while trading or blocking younger players will eventually have to lead us to an unsustainable budget situation, potentially forcing us to trade off players we like while waiting out bloated contracts for aging players (i.e. a slow rebuild like the Cubs are trudging through).

[RightFieldCoder]

Trading for Marcum didn't cause Greinke to come, but it did signify that we were going for it and not going to trade Prince.

[jerichoholicninja]

Trading for Marcum didn't cause Greinke to come, but it did signify that we were going for it and not going to trade Prince.

 

It's been said many times already that Greinke rejected a trade to Milwaukee before the Marcum trade and then approved it after and because of the Marcum trade. If that is true, then yes, Marcum caused Greinke to come.

[monty57]

Trading for Marcum didn't cause Greinke to come, but it did signify that we were going for it and not going to trade Prince.

 

It's been said many times already that Greinke rejected a trade to Milwaukee before the Marcum trade and then approved it after and because of the Marcum trade. If that is true, then yes, Marcum caused Greinke to come.

 

I think it was the knowledge that Prince was not going to be traded moreso than the knowledge that the Brewers got Marcum that changed Greinke's mind. However, if you are correct, who knows what Greinke would have done if the Brewers had traded for a good young pitcher instead of a good old pitcher.

 

I'm not against the fact that the Brewers traded Lawrie. The recent article indicates that there was a big rift, and maybe a trade was necessary. I just think we probably got the short end of the deal, as we received two years of a good "proven" talent, but gave up 6+ years of a potentially great (but unproven) talent.

 

There's nothing that will change, and we live with what happened, which was a NL Central championship season. I just look a little beyond this season, and think that we potentially have some problems with aging, expensive talent, limited payroll flexibility and a weak farm system from which to extract inexpensive, young players.

[Ennder]

Lawrie's a Hall-of-Fame-potential type of talent

 

1/4 season of AB against minor league callups and half a season in AAA at age 21 does not a HOF career make. I think you are wildly overstating his potential. He is an all star potential talent, not a HOF talent. Only 2 of his 9 HR last year came off of major league quality pitchers (unless you count Guthrie and then it is 3~). He mostly feasted on the Coleman, Cassevah, Jacubauskas, Vandenhurk quality pitchers last year, the same guys he was facing in AAA pretty much.

 

I expect Lawrie to be a good major league hitter but it is way too soon to consider him a HOF talent.

[thebruce44]

I expect Lawrie to be a good major league hitter but it is way too soon to consider him a HOF talent.

 

How about HOF potential talent, since that's what was actually said?

[Ennder]

 

How about HOF potential talent, since that's what was actually said?

 

Nope, not that either. Nothing he has done suggests he has the type of talent to be a HOF caliber player. He would need to take a big step up in contact rate or plate discipline. You are just splitting hairs anyway, you could probably say any 22 year has potential HOF talent and find some way to justify it since it really has no meaning.

[TooLiveBrew]

Or it could be based on glowing scouting reports (for his swing) from scouts all across the league.

[monty57]

 

How about HOF potential talent, since that's what was actually said?

 

Nope, not that either. Nothing he has done suggests he has the type of talent to be a HOF caliber player. He would need to take a big step up in contact rate or plate discipline. You are just splitting hairs anyway, you could probably say any 22 year has potential HOF talent and find some way to justify it since it really has no meaning.

 

While he was in the Brewers' system, a lot of people said Lawrie could be comparable to Braun with the bat. If Braun keeps hitting the way he has, he will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Ergo, my comment that Lawrie has the potential to be Hall of Fame caliber. I tried to be pretty careful to state that, as with any prospect, there's a good chance he won't live up to that potential. The 1/2 season helps show that maybe the reports of his talent with the bat were correct, and he's not overmatched by MLB pitching, but he still has a lot to prove.

 

As far as saying any 22-year-old has potential HOF talent, I'd say that right now the Brewers probably have no one in their minors who has potential HOF talent. That makes trading the only potential superstar in your system for two years of "good-but-not-great" pitching hurt a little bit more. I won't cheer against Lawrie so that I can feel better about this, so all I can hope for is Marcum to pitch like an All-Star this season, helping us to a World Series, making this trade feel a lot better.

 

A major point of my posts was that at this point in his career, Melvin seems most comfortable with "proven good" players. If Lawrie had to be traded, it was safer to trade for a Marcum than for another top prospect. I understand why Melvin did the trade he did, I just think it was shorter-term rather than longer-term thinking, and it leads to more short-term thinking like the Ramirez back-end-loaded deal and signing Aoki to fill-in for Braun rather than letting Gindl or Schafer play.

[topper09er]

Here are all players with between 100 and 300 PAs in their first season with an OPS+ > 140

 

[pre]Player Year PA OPS+ Tm BA OBP SLG OPS

Brett Lawrie 2011 171 152 TOR .293 .373 .580 .953

Carlos Santana 2010 192 143 CLE .260 .401 .467 .868

Chris Dickerson 2008 122 162 CIN .304 .413 .608 1.021

Mike Jacobs 2005 112 179 NYM .310 .375 .710 1.085

Willy Aybar 2005 105 140 LAD .326 .448 .453 .901

Jason Bay 2003 107 145 TOT .287 .421 .529 .949

Craig Wilson 2001 183 146 PIT .310 .390 .589 .979

Erubiel Durazo 1999 185 153 ARI .329 .422 .594 1.015

Bret Barberie 1991 162 168 MON .353 .435 .515 .949

Kevin Maas 1990 300 150 NYY .252 .367 .535 .902

Frank Thomas 1990 240 177 CHW .330 .454 .529 .983

Sam Horn 1987 177 142 BOS .278 .356 .589 .945

Kevin Seitzer 1986 116 141 KCR .323 .440 .448 .888

Kal Daniels 1986 207 148 CIN .320 .398 .519 .917

Dan Thomas 1976 121 145 MIL .276 .372 .457 .829

Dave Kingman 1971 128 148 SFG .278 .328 .557 .885

Bill Sudakis 1968 102 165 LAD .276 .382 .471 .854

Doug Rader 1967 176 144 HOU .333 .360 .481 .841

Willie McCovey 1959 219 187 SFG .354 .429 .656 1.085

Bill Skowron 1954 237 167 NYY .340 .392 .577 .969

Whitey Lockman 1945 148 146 NYG .341 .410 .481 .890

Bob Elliott 1939 140 143 PIT .333 .377 .527 .904

Tommy Henrich 1937 241 141 NYY .320 .419 .553 .972

Chuck Klein 1928 275 145 PHI .360 .396 .577 .973

John Stone 1928 122 141 DET .354 .387 .549 .935

Braggo Roth 1914 141 141 CHW .294 .355 .444 .800

Babe Borton 1912 118 142 CHW .371 .416 .419 .835

Olaf Henriksen 1911 108 141 BOS .366 .449 .409 .857

Zack Wheat 1909 113 144 BRO .304 .343 .431 .774

Buck Herzog 1908 213 154 NYG .300 .448 .363 .811

Joe Ward 1906 136 140 PHI .295 .321 .450 .771[/pre]

 

Not that great of a list, Thomas, McCovey, Klein and Wheat went on to have HOF careers. A few more all-stars as well

[thebruce44]

Here are all players with between 100 and 300 PAs in their first season with an OPS+ > 140

 

[pre]Player Year PA OPS+ Tm BA OBP SLG OPS

Brett Lawrie 2011 171 152 TOR .293 .373 .580 .953

Carlos Santana 2010 192 143 CLE .260 .401 .467 .868

Chris Dickerson 2008 122 162 CIN .304 .413 .608 1.021

Mike Jacobs 2005 112 179 NYM .310 .375 .710 1.085

Willy Aybar 2005 105 140 LAD .326 .448 .453 .901

Jason Bay 2003 107 145 TOT .287 .421 .529 .949

Craig Wilson 2001 183 146 PIT .310 .390 .589 .979

Erubiel Durazo 1999 185 153 ARI .329 .422 .594 1.015

Bret Barberie 1991 162 168 MON .353 .435 .515 .949

Kevin Maas 1990 300 150 NYY .252 .367 .535 .902

Frank Thomas 1990 240 177 CHW .330 .454 .529 .983

Sam Horn 1987 177 142 BOS .278 .356 .589 .945

Kevin Seitzer 1986 116 141 KCR .323 .440 .448 .888

Kal Daniels 1986 207 148 CIN .320 .398 .519 .917

Dan Thomas 1976 121 145 MIL .276 .372 .457 .829

Dave Kingman 1971 128 148 SFG .278 .328 .557 .885

Bill Sudakis 1968 102 165 LAD .276 .382 .471 .854

Doug Rader 1967 176 144 HOU .333 .360 .481 .841

Willie McCovey 1959 219 187 SFG .354 .429 .656 1.085

Bill Skowron 1954 237 167 NYY .340 .392 .577 .969

Whitey Lockman 1945 148 146 NYG .341 .410 .481 .890

Bob Elliott 1939 140 143 PIT .333 .377 .527 .904

Tommy Henrich 1937 241 141 NYY .320 .419 .553 .972

Chuck Klein 1928 275 145 PHI .360 .396 .577 .973

John Stone 1928 122 141 DET .354 .387 .549 .935

Braggo Roth 1914 141 141 CHW .294 .355 .444 .800

Babe Borton 1912 118 142 CHW .371 .416 .419 .835

Olaf Henriksen 1911 108 141 BOS .366 .449 .409 .857

Zack Wheat 1909 113 144 BRO .304 .343 .431 .774

Buck Herzog 1908 213 154 NYG .300 .448 .363 .811

Joe Ward 1906 136 140 PHI .295 .321 .450 .771[/pre]

 

Not that great of a list, Thomas, McCovey, Klein and Wheat went on to have HOF careers. A few more all-stars as well

 

Maybe because your list manages to cut off guys like Braun, Pujols, ARod, Ruth, Williams, ect who fell outside of your 100 - 300 PA in their first season. Not sure what that proves or doesn't prove.

[jjfanec]

 

Maybe because your list manages to cut off guys like Braun, Pujols, ARod, Ruth, Williams, ect who fell outside of your 100 - 300 PA in their first season. Not sure what that proves or doesn't prove.

 

Because those who had over 300 had a much bigger sample size. I am pretty sure toppers point is that a lot of people have put up numbers like Lawrie's in a shortened first season, but only a handful where All-Stars or HOFers. His list simply proves that people MAY be jumping the gun on the greatness of Lawrie. Now I think Lawrie is going to be very good but that list does show people have had years like Lawrie and fallen off the map or just become mediocre MLB players.

[CheezWizHed]

Chris Dickerson 2008 122 162 CIN .304 .413 .608 1.021

 

[sarcasm]I knew we gave up on him too soon![/sarcasm]

[thebruce44]

 

Maybe because your list manages to cut off guys like Braun, Pujols, ARod, Ruth, Williams, ect who fell outside of your 100 - 300 PA in their first season. Not sure what that proves or doesn't prove.

 

Because those who had over 300 had a much bigger sample size. I am pretty sure toppers point is that a lot of people have put up numbers like Lawrie's in a shortened first season, but only a handful where All-Stars or HOFers. His list simply proves that people MAY be jumping the gun on the greatness of Lawrie. Now I think Lawrie is going to be very good but that list does show people have had years like Lawrie and fallen off the map or just become mediocre MLB players.

 

My point is that it also cut off a guy like ARod who was under 100 ABs in his first season.

[topper09er]

 

Maybe because your list manages to cut off guys like Braun, Pujols, ARod, Ruth, Williams, ect who fell outside of your 100 - 300 PA in their first season. Not sure what that proves or doesn't prove.

 

Because those who had over 300 had a much bigger sample size. I am pretty sure toppers point is that a lot of people have put up numbers like Lawrie's in a shortened first season, but only a handful where All-Stars or HOFers. His list simply proves that people MAY be jumping the gun on the greatness of Lawrie. Now I think Lawrie is going to be very good but that list does show people have had years like Lawrie and fallen off the map or just become mediocre MLB players.

 

Thanks, my point was you could pick anyone on the list and draw the same conclusion as you could with Lawrie. If someone saw any player on the list and said they were a potential HOFer it would be correct to say unlikely. I just put the lower cutoff so the list wasn't excessively long.

[jjfanec]

 

Maybe because your list manages to cut off guys like Braun, Pujols, ARod, Ruth, Williams, ect who fell outside of your 100 - 300 PA in their first season. Not sure what that proves or doesn't prove.

 

Because those who had over 300 had a much bigger sample size. I am pretty sure toppers point is that a lot of people have put up numbers like Lawrie's in a shortened first season, but only a handful where All-Stars or HOFers. His list simply proves that people MAY be jumping the gun on the greatness of Lawrie. Now I think Lawrie is going to be very good but that list does show people have had years like Lawrie and fallen off the map or just become mediocre MLB players.

 

My point is that it also cut off a guy like ARod who was under 100 ABs in his first season.

 

Okay throw Arod on there does it really make the list look that much better?

[thebruce44]

 

Because those who had over 300 had a much bigger sample size. I am pretty sure toppers point is that a lot of people have put up numbers like Lawrie's in a shortened first season, but only a handful where All-Stars or HOFers. His list simply proves that people MAY be jumping the gun on the greatness of Lawrie. Now I think Lawrie is going to be very good but that list does show people have had years like Lawrie and fallen off the map or just become mediocre MLB players.

 

My point is that it also cut off a guy like ARod who was under 100 ABs in his first season.

 

Okay throw Arod on there does it really make the list look that much better?

 

If we are making a list of players who are very young for their league, who scouts say have star potential, and who OPS+ over whatever cutoff, then yea, I think having ARod on that short list makes a difference.

[monty57]

I'm not saying Lawrie will end up in the Hall of Fame. I'm saying he is talented and has a tremendous amount of potential.

 

If he lives up to his potential, this will end up being a very lopsided trade in Toronto's favor. If he fails to live up to his potential, he should still be a decent major leaguer, which will still have tilted this trade in Toronto's favor (6+ years vs 2 years), and only if he falls flat on his face will this turn out to be a win for the Brewers. Even then, he's already got 1/2 year of very good MLB play vs Marcum's one year for the Brewers, so I don't see Toronto losing this trade.

 

We traded six+ years of a more talented (but "unproven") player for two years of a less talented (but "proven") player who also happened to have a fairly significant injury history. It's hard to win that deal on a head-to-head basis, and it really shows the premium Melvin has recently placed on "proven" over "unproven."

 

So if the Blue Jays win the trade purely from a talent-for-talent perspective, what we have to hang our hat on is an NL Central crown, which Marcum did help us win and whatever happens this year. After that, we will have nothing to show for the trade. At the end of the day, it's about success for the Brewers, so the question really is, which scenario would have led to the greatest success for the Brewers franchise:

 

1) Making the Lawrie-for-Marcum trade

2) Holding on to Lawrie

3) Trading Lawrie for an "equal value" young pitcher (if that trade were available)

 

I'll never know the answer to this one, as it's all hypothetical. Personally, I think some GM would have stepped to the plate with a deal centered around a younger pitcher, but I could be wrong. If that deal was there, I'd rather have seen that happen.

 

But, the trade's done, we have an NL Central crown and one more shot with Marcum, and the Blue Jays have what seems like a really good young hitter for the foreseeable future.

[endaround]

No its actually fairly easy to win. 4 marginal wins on a 86 win team is much more valuable than 4 wins on a 75 win team

[monty57]

No its actually fairly easy to win. 4 marginal wins on a 86 win team is much more valuable than 4 wins on a 75 win team

 

How about 8 wins over two years vs. 26 or so wins over 6+ years?

 

I'd be ecstatic if we could get Shelby Miller or Trevor Bauer for Randy Wolf, but it ain't gonna happen. A more talented guy with 6+ years is worth more than a less talented (but still good) guy with far less service time. Arizona & St Louis aren't going to make those trades, even though it would help their playoff chance and hurt ours.

[endaround]

Trading Jeff Cirillo for extra 4 wins in 1992 would have been better for the Brewers than the 24 wins he gave the Brewers in the mid 90s over 5 and a half years.