What is Marcum's trade value?

[endaround]

I got the feeling the Brewers were partially moving Lawrie before he couldn't handle 3B and have to move to the OF/1B lowering his value further. I think they were going to try to move him to 3B if he was in the system in 2011.

[RockCoCougars]

I'd bet that Lawrie would have ended up as an outfielder in the Brewers organization. He will probably end up there within the next few years in Toronto as well. If he continues to progress as a hitter, that won't matter....however, to me he lost a lot of his value when he decided that he didn't want to catch anymore.

 

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

 

It's irritating to me that there are a lot more people who are vocally against this trade now then there were 8 months ago. Was I in favor of the trade when it was made? Absolutely. Would I do it again? I would have said yes 2 months ago- I'd say no now. All that I'm saying is the path baseball history is littered with guys like Lawrie who started off like gangbusters and went bust. That's the beauty of baseball. Heck, for all we know, Marcum will go out and win the Cy Young next year.

[TheCrew07]

I guess that depends on what people thought of McGehee regarding a glaring hole at 3b. I for one never liked him defensively and always figured he would regress offensively, and there were plenty of people that agreed, it was a position that should have always been looked at in terms of being "upgradable". He's just not as physically gifted compared to his peers, and he had much less success than a player like Gamel for example, who people constantly trash around here.

 

The larger point that I think is being missed is that the Brewers decided Lawrie was a 2B when he decided he wasn't going to catch. Many posters on the minor league forums thought he would ultimately end up some place other than 2B, Toronto moving him wasn't exactly shocking by any stretch. If you don't follow the minor leagues closely, then you probably wouldn't fully understand history of defensive ineptitude of this current administration. The fact that Braun and Weeks at least approached average defensively in the big leagues isn't an endorsement of what's been done, it's condemnation of it. Anything that negatively impacts a player's overall value at MLB isn't a good thing, regardless if he eventually figures it out, he still limited his value in those poor defensive seasons.

 

Luck? How do you prove or disprove luck? It's the easiest thing to claim and one of the hardest refute... why do people that are good at what they do seem to get all the breaks? Why do good teams seem to get all the bounces? Luck is usually just the result of making the most of an opportunity that presents itself.

 

Finally, yet again people are looking at the pitching staff as it related to 2010, as if it were in vacuum. We've been down the pitching road numerous times, people are going to believe what they want to believe in that regard, from where I'm sitting Melvin doesn't build around young pitching, he builds around young SLG, and trading our best talent for obvious established talent doesn't make him a better GM when most people on this board would have made those trades. Regardless, my point was about cost controlled talent... there is quite a bit to like about Marcum as a pitcher, again he's one of the few soft tossers I latched onto, but from a pure talent standpoint Brett Lawrie is simply vastly more talented. Hall of Fame? Come on... I used the word potential, I know he hasn't proven anything, my problem was using an ultra gifted prospect to acquire an injury risk control pitcher. I don't expect most people to agree with me because most people are only going to care what happens with the MLB team in any specific season, but at least make an effort to actually understand the argument being presented. We traded away a little under 7 years (at minimum) of whatever Lawrie's production will be, including his cheapest controlled seasons. for Marcum's most expensive 2 seasons as a professional, as well as a significant disparity in pure talent.

 

I've also said many times that the player is ultimately responsible for his performance, but these are young kids, not fully adjusted adults, and again I think people vastly overestimate how much development time there actually is as a minor league player. The minor leagues are mostly about trial by fire, it's not the coaching that's necessarily the problem, it's the system. You have 3 coaches, 24+ players per team, and about an hour on the field to get done everything you need to get done prior to a game each day. Pitchers in the bullpen aren't getting side sessions with the pitching coach, the position players aren't getting daily individual instruction, there just simply isn't enough coaching time to go around with so few coaches given the time constraints.

 

The focus on the Brewer's side has been obvious, you have to be able to hit to be a MLB player. However, runs prevented are just as valuable as runs created, in addition to the fact that poor defense adds unnecessary stress to the pitching staff because poor defense ultimately shortens the starting pitcher's day from an IP perspective.

 

I stand by my premise that anyone not named Gallardo or Braun is tradable at any time given the right deal. We don't "need" Marcum, Hart, Weeks... what we need is to build an organization ripe with talent that produces enough talent to win at the MLB level and can replenish impact talent when the Brewers allow said talent to move on. So far the system has done neither, it didn't produce enough pitching to go with the hitting in the first wave, and now the system has been emptied of impact talent to the point we don't have immediate replacements waiting anywhere but 1B. Unfortunately the consensus on the board seems to be that Gamel will fail at 1B even though he played as poorly as he could in uneven playing time and still put a league average OPS, so Melvin should go spend money on 1B in FA. I just don't see the situation in the light that we need every productive player we currently have and never will.

[TooLiveBrew]

It's irritating to me that there are a lot more people who are vocally against this trade now then there were 8 months ago. Was I in favor of the trade when it was made? Absolutely. Would I do it again? I would have said yes 2 months ago- I'd say no now.

 

As one who was not in favor of the trade at the time, I really don't care now whether someone was for or against it at the time. People are allowed to change their minds.

[RockCoCougars]

As one who was not in favor of the trade at the time, I really don't care now whether someone was for or against it at the time. People are allowed to change their minds.

So if Lawrie becomes the next Ben Grieve, these same flip-floppers can crow about how 'we' hosed Toronto in a few years? I can't stand it because these are the same types of people who call the radio talk shows, etc. They are just like the people who complain to this day how the Brewers should have never traded Sheffield.

[TooLiveBrew]

So if Lawrie becomes the next Ben Grieve, these same flip-floppers can crow about how 'we' hosed Toronto in a few years?

 

I guess I just don't care too much one way or the other. I was against the trade, but grew to like Marcum.

And I guess I wouldn't disagree that the return the Brewers got for Sheffield sucked. He gave them no choice but to trade him, but that doesn't mean Bones/Mieske/Valentin was a good return.