What is Marcum's trade value?

[paul253]

I see John Lackey will be out for the year with TJ surgery. Maybe Boston will be desperate enough to overpay for Marcum? I don't know Boston's system at all. What do they have in terms of minor league pitching or shortstops that would match up with Milwaukee's needs?

[nate82]

I see John Lackey will be out for the year with TJ surgery. Maybe Boston will be desperate enough to overpay for Marcum? I don't know Boston's system at all. What do they have in terms of minor league pitching or shortstops that would match up with Milwaukee's needs?

 

 

Most of the Red Sox talent is located in A ball. Their best prospect would be 3B Middlebrooks. I would take Middlebrooks for Marcum. The Brewers don't necessarily need pitching back in return with Peralta and more so Fiers knocking on the door. Though depth at pitching is always nice to have. SS would be nice to get but to be honest there really are not that many SS prospects out there right now available in a trade.

Edit - Forgot about Oscar Tejada in the Red Sox organization though I am not sure on his offensive capabilities. There have also been reports that he lacks the focus to play SS and he is currently playing 2B in the minors right now but he would be the only player in the Red Sox organization that would be available in a trade that would be a SS. I don't believe he is a SS but that is basically who you could get from Boston in a Marcum trade with some other players. Probably Ranaudo, Tejada, + for Marcum though I would rather take a chance on Middlebrooks and another prospect for Marcum.

From SoxProspects.com

Scouting Report: Excellent athlete with 5-tool potential. Confidence player. Has always been age-advanced at every stop of his career in the system. Plus bat speed with whip-like swing. Has tendency to get too long with it and wrap around the baseball. Did a lot of clean-up work quieting himself down and eliminating timing step in 2010. Solid-average power potential. Creates strong backspin when he squares pitches up and hits the ball hard when putting it in play. Below-average plate discipline and extremely impatient at the plate. Lacks a plan. Improving picking up spin of secondary offerings out of opposing pitchers' hands, but chases too much. Likes fastballs middle-in. Needs to expand plate coverage and work to opposite field with more frequency to project as solid-average hitter. Plus speed. Capable of stealing bases, but does not show an interest in bringing that aspect into his game. Presently below-average defensively at second base. Especially struggles with reads on balls up the middle. Lacks concentration in the field and focus drifts. Will make spectacular play and then struggle on a routine one. Shows tools and ability, but may ultimately end up in the outfield. Plus arm. High overall ceiling. Rough and raw currently against upper minors competition, but ceiling of a solid-average-to-better overall major league player as skills and mindset matures into mid-20s.

[narwhalattack]

I think KC is also looking to trade for a starter, so if the Brewers are thinking about trading Marcum to KC, maybe they can trade him for Cheslor Cuthbert if they're looking for an infielder, or Mike Montgomery or Danny Duffy if they're looking for a pitcher.

[Raw Biz]

I think KC is also looking to trade for a starter, so if the Brewers are thinking about trading Marcum to KC, maybe they can trade him for Cheslor Cuthbert if they're looking for an infielder, or Mike Montgomery or Danny Duffy if they're looking for a pitcher.

Montgomery struggled this year but there's still no way the Royals would trade him for Marcum. If they did, I'd be all over it.

[RockCoCougars]

I don't want prospects for Marcum at this point. As I said before, the Royals have a plethora of 1B/corner outfielders. Billy Butler makes a lot of sense for them, but he's not enough for me. I'd try to work something for Gordon, but I doubt the Royals would even think about that.

[Dollarbill13]

I don't want prospects for Marcum at this point. As I said before, the Royals have a plethora of 1B/corner outfielders. Billy Butler makes a lot of sense for them, but he's not enough for me. I'd try to work something for Gordon, but I doubt the Royals would even think about that.

Gordon has defensive value but he's coming off a season with a .358 BABIP. There's no way he sustains that. Gordon is a nice player and would possibly be an upgrade from Hart once you factor in defense. However, I wouldn't give up a ton to get him.

[pingman]

KC is looking for young & cheap....Marcum doesn't fit their agenda

 

I'd keep Marcum & build around the solid starting 5

[JohnBriggs12]

KC is looking for young & cheap....Marcum doesn't fit their agenda

 

I'd keep Marcum & build around the solid starting 5

Assuming the same 5 guys will be solid next year because they were solid this year is dangerous. Without Fielder or a significant upgrade elsewhere, solid isn't going to be good enough anyway. I agree with NDOG44. There's no reason to hold back Peralta. If you think he's a major league talent, he needs to be in the major leagues. He's got plenty of minor league innings. There's only so much a guy can learn facing minor leaguers and there's only so much you can learn about him. Peralta's K/BB ratio of 2.25 to 1 in the minors indicates his command is decent. He hasn't walked a ton of guys.

 

 

 

[Hate those Rodents]

I'd feel ok with letting Fiers/Perralta battle for a rotation spot if we can get value for one of Marcum/Wolf.

[ramssuperbowl99]

I'd feel ok with letting Fiers/Perralta battle for a rotation spot if we can get value for one of Marcum/Wolf.

Or let one of them battle for a spot and move Narveson to the bullpen. No reason to trade from your SP depth if you don't think you have to.

Also, why on earth would we trade Marcum when his value can't possible be lower? He has injury rumors that are unsubstantiated and posted an ERA of 9 during the past 6 weeks. Why not wait for him to reestablish himself (which he will).

[NievesNoNO]

I don't see any teams willing to part with a their top pitching prospects for a one year rental of Marcum. I'd think his value would be highest at the trade deadline if they really wanted to move him. I'd actually like to see him extended. If they think they're contenders next season (which I beleive they still will be) they need to hold on to Marcum. If you are really looking to move a pitcher I'd really push Wolf on the market. Keeping them both however wouldn't be bad as it will give Peralta and/or Fiers time to prove they can pitch at the major league level. I'd hate to start selling off pitching before we actually know whether or not we have replacements.

[fondybrewfan]

I'd feel ok with letting Fiers/Perralta battle for a rotation spot if we can get value for one of Marcum/Wolf.

Or let one of them battle for a spot and move Narveson to the bullpen. No reason to trade from your SP depth if you don't think you have to.

Also, why on earth would we trade Marcum when his value can't possible be lower? He has injury rumors that are unsubstantiated and posted an ERA of 9 during the past 6 weeks. Why not wait for him to reestablish himself (which he will).

Just my opinion but assuming Marcum's health would be verified by a physical I don't think to many teams are going to shy away from him because of a bad month. Smart teams would see how good he was for the last couple years and realize September/October was just a bad stretch. Whatever team trades for him would have him take a physical; assuming there are no issues there is no reason to believe he wouldn't reveryt back to good Marcum.

 

That said we aren't going to get a Top #50 prospect for him most likely unless more is included from the Brewers side. I would just assume we keep him but would be OK trading him so long as we get something decent. I just doubt Melvin is going to turn around and trade the guy because of 6 bad weeks since he did trade his top prospect for him less than 12 months ago.

 

 

[JohnBriggs12]

"I just doubt Melvin is going to trade the the guy because of 6 bad weeks since he did trade his top prospect for him less than 12 months ago"

 

Perhaps. But those 6 weeks weren't in June and July, they were at the end of the season and in the playoffs. He's certainly not going to offer Marcum an extension which is something he might have been inclined to do had Marcum finished strong. Still Marcum figures to get a hefty raise in arbitration. I think the die has been cast on the relative merits of the Lawrie for Marcum deal and it wasn't a long term win for the Brewers. Lawrie was thought to be expendable because they still had McGehee. That didn't work and Marcum's late failures in large part negated much of his value from earlier.

 

There's a very good possibility that any and all of Greinke, Wolf and Marcum could be shopped as the trading deadline approaches. Melvin's always been more inclined to deal in the winter, when he can line up more suitors. If he thinks he can do better with the money that would have gone to Marcum, for a different FA pitcher or player, they are still getting some benefit out of that deal at least.

[TheCrew07]

I wouldn't say with any certainty that Melvin won't extend Marcum. Personally, I think it comes down to Greinke or Marcum, but as I've posted many times I wouldn't resign either for various reasons. Marcum fits the mold of Melvin's FA starting pitcher signings to a "T", and he already has a relationship with the player.

[RightFieldCoder]

Lawrie was expendable because we had locked up Weeks. It was Toronto that wanted to move him back to 3B. The Brewers didn't think he would be good enough defensively at 3B.

[Hate those Rodents]

I don't think it's that we didn't think he'd be good enough defensively at 3B. At least I never say anything on that. I think we decided (or maybe even he decided) that catcher was the wrong position for him. I don't recall reading where we doubted him playing any other position.

[TooLiveBrew]

Iirc Lawrie wanted to catch initially, since he thought his bat would play best there (correct), but then he decided he didn't want to (or couldn't) learn the position after all.

[TheCrew07]

Lawrie was expendable because we had locked up Weeks. It was Toronto that wanted to move him back to 3B. The Brewers didn't think he would be good enough defensively at 3B.

I don't agree with that assessment at all. Signing Weeks didn't make Lawrie expendable, impact bats are rarely ever expendable. LaPorta was a 1B only type player and the Brewers had Fielder there for 3 more years in 2008, not to mention scouting reports talked of major holes in his swing and the organization still had Gamel, Cain, and Lawrie who projected to be everyday players. Lawrie was athletic enough to play anywhere on the diamond, he wasn't limited to 2B in the same way that Gennett is limited to 2B, and after his trade there wasn't a single impact hitter between A and AAA. Gamel is still in the system, I still believe that he will hit, but doesn't qualify to be a prospect anymore.

 

If the organization truly thought that Lawrie was expendable because he was only a 2B... well that's the problem with how the organization is developing talent on full display. Instead of working to find a player's best natural position, they put bad defenders at premium positions and tell them they need to get better without taking the time to adequately develop those skills. Once again, no one really worked hard with Gamel until he hit AA... he had be in the organization for 3 years by then. Nichols had Brantley DH through the low minors just to get his bat in line-up everyday because he was playing with a bunch of OF prospects. How hard would it have been to rotate all 4 players through the 3 OF spots and DH so they all got their ABs and defensive work in at the same time? Brantley who turned out to be the only MLB player in that group didn't play OF for 2 years wasting time at 1B/DH. It's just stupid, it's horrible mismanagement of resources, and it's one of the reasons the Brewers as a team are horrible defensively. The organization simply hasn't made developing the fundamentals of the game a priority, maybe it's changing now, but I don't see it with the same people in charge.

 

People will talk about attitude issues with Lawrie as well, the same argument as Gamel, but we just simply can't give impact talent away without getting it in return. Again, Marcum is one of the few soft tossers I've latched onto, long before he was in Milwaukee, I have posts about him going back years (I still can't believe Toronto had Bush, Jackson, Marcum, and McGowan and we took Bush/Jackson), but there's simply no way Marcum for Lawrie was an even trade talent wise. Lawrie has the tools to be a 30/30 guy, Marcum get's the most of his talent utilizing a great change and good command.

[nate82]

Wasn't Marcum originally targeted by Melvin when he made the trade for Bush and Jackson? I can't remember exactly but I do remember that there was some talk about Marcum being in the Overbay trade and the Blue Jays were not going to give him up. I believe Melvin had Marcum targeted for awhile before acquiring him last off season. I am very scared of the Brewers extending Marcum not because Marcum isn't good now but what he will be in the future. Yes he has some very nice control and some very good off speed pitches but his fastball is completely hitable with little to no movement and no velocity.

I believe Melvin had Lawrie originally in the trade to acquire Greinke but at that time Greinke didn't want to go to Milwaukee so Melvin went with option B which was Marcum. I do believe Melvin gave up way to much for Marcum as Cain and another prospect should have gotten that deal done. The Blue Jays were looking for a CF at that time and Cain would have filled that hole for them the other prospect probably would have been Rivas or someone like him. I also believe that Lawrie was going to be traded last off season no matter what. To me it was like Lawrie was drafted as a trade chip and nothing more as the Brewers never really looked at Lawrie as having a position with the Brewers. He was blocked at 2B and the Brewers had Gamel at 1B/3B. The OF was another spot to place Lawrie but I am not sure he has the arm to play RF which would mean he would have to play LF which would be fine because if the Brewers lose Fielder you could always move Braun from LF to 1B and put Lawrie in LF. To me the Brewers have been mismanaging their minor league clubs for a long time now. It has been going on for a long time now and I am not sure there is going to be any change unless some major changes happen in the front office and I don't see that happening unless Melvin and company really start losing badly and there looks to be no hope for a turn around. Jack Z, Melvin, and others are to blame for the minor league system for the way that it is.

[jmeks23]

I think Lawrie playing well at 3b surprised everybody though. The Blue Jays took a gamble putting him at 3B and in the limited amount of games he played, it worked pretty well. Pretty sure everybody saw him as a no glove big bat guy, with the potential to improve with the glove.

 

That's what the Brewers draft when it comes to bats, they draft big bats with no glove. All they care about is the impact bat, not a gold glover, so for people to keep saying they mismanaged because they put Lawrie at 2B is ridiculous to me. Where would you put him? He can't play short, he's not a 1B, he couldn't cut it at C, he didn't seem to have the intangibles to play 3B, and he couldn't play CF. So that leaves him with two spots, corner OF (which when he was drafted was blocked for a long time) and 2B (which was up in the air until this past offseason).

 

Hindsight is just so 20/20 for all of you guys. You think because the Jays took the risk of putting him at 3rd and it worked, that the Brewers made a huge mistake not doing it. And whoever was complaining about Brantley, I find that a bit short-sighted. You probably didn't care at all when he was the throw in piece for CC, but now you care because Brantleys playing good?

 

Anyone in the Brewers system in the past 10 years that has had a "position crisis" has been one of those all-bat no glove players as I mentioned. Weeks, Fielder, Braun, Gamel, Lawrie, etc. I don't believe that's the Brewers fault

[TooLiveBrew]

Hindsight is just so 20/20 for all of you guys. You think because the Jays took the risk of putting him at 3rd and it worked, that the Brewers made a huge mistake not doing it.

 

Or you could say the Jays evaluated his skillset correctly & helped develop him on defense. It's not about intangibles as much as it is... tangibles. And obviously Lawrie's tools translate alright to 3B, although I'm not sure if he'll ever really be an asset on defense.

 

I don't think the Brewers made a mistake in trading Lawrie, but I do think they made a mistake in only getting a player in return who was/is under contract for two seasons.

 

 

Anyone in the Brewers system in the past 10 years that has had a "position crisis" has been one of those all-bat no glove players as I mentioned. Weeks, Fielder, Braun, Gamel, Lawrie, etc. I don't believe that's the Brewers fault

 

It's their fault for drafting bat-only or bat-first players, scouting & evaluating the players' defensive abilities/potential incorrectly, or for not helping develop the player(s) into solid defenders. But I use "fault" a bit lightly, as I don't see anything wrong with drafting good bats like the guys you listed. Plus, Weeks & Braun have developed pretty well on defense. And I see your larger point that the player himself is the one who has to ultimately do the improving (see Weeks & Braun). But the Brewers have clearly done all or at least some of the things I listed to start this paragraph. The drafting philosophy has been clear: draft the bat, worry about the rest later.

[RockCoCougars]

I wouldn't start casting Lawrie's plaque for Cooperstown just yet. Hindsight is 20/20. Not even the biggest Lawrie backer could have seen the season that he had last year coming. I still say that he would have never sniffed the majors last season had the Brewers kept him. I have a feeling that he wouldn't have played nice with Money down in Nashville.

[TooLiveBrew]

I wouldn't start casting Lawrie's plaque for Cooperstown just yet.

 

Can we please drop this strawman? No one has made this claim.

[jmeks23]

I just disagree with the Jays making the 'correct' move in moving him to 3B. They had a glaring hole at 3B and we didn't. They had Aaron Hill among others at 2B at the time which seemingly blocked Lawrie there. I think it just worked out well for them to be honest. Probably 75% luck and 25% good development/good evaluation.

[TooLiveBrew]

I can't argue that too much. The only things I'd point out in favor of Lawrie at 3B is his arm & athleticism. I honestly don't know much (if anything) about his defense. I've never seen him play in person.