Possible Trade Targets - Starting Pitching

[sveumrules]

It seems more and more likely that DMGM is going to bring in at least one veteran arm this offseason to solidify the starting rotation and give us some insurance on our young arms. As there is already a thread discussing some free agents I thought I'd start one for possible trade targets.

 

The one I'll throw out there is Jon Lester. His contract is essentially 2/25 at this point which is cheaper than any of the second tier (Please no Lohse, Jackson, Dumpster) free agents you might be able to sign while also likely providing more upside. He is also left handed and we have no left handed pitching prospects of note anywhere in sight so far as I can tell.

 

Who are some guys you might like to see/think DMGM will pursue this winter?

[narwhalattack]

It's probably not going to be a costly move, given that the farm system is still recuperating from the 2011 Greinke trade. If Lester can be had for non-top prospects, then it would be nice to see Melvin consider that. Otherwise, I could see him going after guys like Brandon McCarthy or Edwin Jackson.

[Warning Track Power]

I'd be very tempted to give Jake Peavy a look. However, his past screams injury risk and I think it will take more than a Randy Wolf deal (3 years, $30 million) to get him and I'd be hard pressed even at that rate.

[MNBrew]

I had thought about Jon Lester back in August when his name was "out there" in potential/speculated trade discussions. Now, if Boston's looking to dump that contract & if the Brewers are willing to take the whole contract on the condition that non-top prospects are all it'll take (or non-tender types like Parra or Loe, thinking optimistically), I'd try to do that deal. Assuming there's no lurking injury or obvious/scouted flaws (e.g., notable velocity drop), he's a bounce-back candidate given his very strong track record AND a trade like that is comparable to a FA signing anyway.

[jerichoholicninja]

Is it time for Billy Beane to start trading his pitchers?

[JohnBriggs12]

It's probably not going to be a costly move, given that the farm system is still recuperating from the 2011 Greinke trade. If Lester can be had for non-top prospects, then it would be nice to see Melvin consider that. Otherwise, I could see him going after guys like Brandon McCarthy or Edwin Jackson.

 

The farm system is no longer affected by the Grienke/Marcum deals. Escobar was already a major leaguer when the deal was made, and now Cain and Lawrie are established as well. Their absence is on the major league level and all have been adequately replaced. Odorizzi would be one of a large group the Brewers have knocking on the major league door so his absence doesn't have a significant effect on the current systems depth. Jeffress has struggled. Furthermore, there have been 2 drafts since those deals were made and two high level pitchers added in the Greinke deal.

 

The Brewers have enough quality in their system to do a deal for one established starter.

[Roderick]

If he is 2yr/$25M and the Red Sox would be willing to part with him and not expect a big haul, then yes I would get behind that trade. He looks like he had an off year in 2012 but is only 29 in 2013. Two years would be the most I would want to go, so that would work out.

[nate82]

Is it time for Billy Beane to start trading his pitchers?

 

I know you are being sarcastic here but I would look into seeing if he would give up Brett Anderson. He is signed through 2015 with two team buyouts and depending on what the Beane would want for Anderson I would definitely be interested in him. The Brewers would have him for his prime but he maybe to much of a injury risk to sign to a longer term deal or even give up the prospects needed for him.

 

Another pitcher that is going to be talked about in the trade market will be David Price but I don't see the Brewers having the prospects needed to land him.

 

Ubaldo Jimenez maybe another option that the Brewers could look at. If the Indians are willing to take someone like Bradley or Scarpetta for him straight up I would do that trade. Maybe Jimenez has a bounce back year and voids his option for 2014 or he doesn't and the Brewers would be able to buy him out at $1m. Though the Brewers may not have to trade for Jimenez as he maybe bought out this year as there is a team option with a $1m buyout not sure the Indians will do this as they gave up a lot to get him. I don't believe Jimenez should be all that expensive in a trade and giving up either Bradley or Scarpetta shouldn't be a problem as they look to be extra pieces right now in the minors. I would prefer to get someone younger and more cost controlled than Jimenez but I also don't want to give up the prospects that it would take to get someone like that.

 

My ideal candidate to trade for would be Danny Hultzen but I doubt Jack Z would trade him away and the Brewers do not have the prospects to trade away to the Mariners for Hultzen either. Maybe a Gallardo and Gamel for Hultzen, Paxton, and Liddi? I think I might be dreaming again with that trade.

[TURBO]

I want no part of Jimenez, none...

 

Especially if it means trading anything, and I mean anything of value.

[JohnBriggs12]

With the Cubs not being a serious threat for at least another couple years, I would at least look into Matt Garza. He's a FA after next year and was hurt for most of the 2nd half. From Cubs perspective, they would figure Garza would be long gone from Milwaukee by the time they get good anyway so it's not like they are helping a rival at their expense. The Cubs probably want Garza to start the year and boost his value for a deadline deal (another thing the Brewers could think about later too), but he's worth asking about anyway.

[logan82]

With the Cubs not being a serious threat for at least another couple years, I would at least look into Matt Garza. He's a FA after next year and was hurt for most of the 2nd half. From Cubs perspective, they would figure Garza would be long gone from Milwaukee by the time they get good anyway so it's not like they are helping a rival at their expense. The Cubs probably want Garza to start the year and boost his value for a deadline deal (another thing the Brewers could think about later too), but he's worth asking about anyway.

Why would we want to help the cubs down the road?

[JohnBriggs12]

With the Cubs not being a serious threat for at least another couple years, I would at least look into Matt Garza. He's a FA after next year and was hurt for most of the 2nd half. From Cubs perspective, they would figure Garza would be long gone from Milwaukee by the time they get good anyway so it's not like they are helping a rival at their expense. The Cubs probably want Garza to start the year and boost his value for a deadline deal (another thing the Brewers could think about later too), but he's worth asking about anyway.

Why would we want to help the cubs down the road?

 

To win now? Besides, there's no guaranty whoever the Brewers would give up would help the Cubs down the road. They are going to get somebody from somewhere for Garza anyway.

[JohnBriggs12]

Speaking of Chicago pitchers, the White Sox have some interesting decisions. Floyd has a $9.5 million team option for 2013 and Peavy has a $22 million team option. The speculation is they won't exercise Peavy's option but still are interested in bringing him back at a lower amount. But until they know they've got Peavy locked up, they really can't afford to let Floyd go.

So assuming they come to an agreement with Peavy, they are going to want to unload Floyd's $9.5 million.

 

Now Floyd's been a hot and cold pitcher his entire career. But he's not a bad fit from a Brewer perspective. Because he's a salary dump and only under control through 2013, his asking price won't be high either.

[nate82]

Speaking of Chicago pitchers, the White Sox have some interesting decisions. Floyd has a $9.5 million team option for 2013 and Peavy has a $22 million team option. The speculation is they won't exercise Peavy's option but still are interested in bringing him back at a lower amount. But until they know they've got Peavy locked up, they really can't afford to let Floyd go.

So assuming they come to an agreement with Peavy, they are going to want to unload Floyd's $9.5 million.

 

Now Floyd's been a hot and cold pitcher his entire career. But he's not a bad fit from a Brewer perspective. Because he's a salary dump and only under control through 2013, his asking price won't be high either.

 

I don't like Floyd at all as I believe he is just an over hyped player and he has never really impressed me at all. I would rather give money to Santana than Peavy as Peavy is going to be looking at a multi year deal. The White Sox are going to have enough cash to bring back both Floyd and Peavy. I believe you said this last off season that the White Sox were going to dump Floyd because they didn't have enough salary room. I just don't see this at all as he is only signed for $9.5m which isn't all that much for the White Sox and they will be able to give Peavy something around $10-14m a year for 2-3 years.

[HiAndTight]

I'd be very tempted to give Jake Peavy a look. However, his past screams injury risk and I think it will take more than a Randy Wolf deal (3 years, $30 million) to get him and I'd be hard pressed even at that rate.

 

 

I would. Absolutely. I wouldn't trade for Lester because I think he's going to cost you a Peralta type prospect at least, or several other young arms.

 

I wouldn't go the trade route because it's a LOT easier to recover from overspending than it is to recover from giving up young prospects.

 

The Greinke deal and the Marcum deals have killed us. We need to keep adding the Coultier's, Roache's, the Jungman, Bradley and Lopez types to our system while developing the top of our pen. We can't move guys like that. Now those deals gave us a great two year window that led to a team record in wins, and we lost in the NLCS in 6 and a 2nd year where the glass on that window shattered because our closers closed that window pretty hard early on. But to have for instance Lawrie/Escobar/Weeks/Hart/Lucroy/Maldonado on the IF saving 36 million dollars, Cain in the OF, and Odorizzi on the mound, this team would be in a completely different situation. And I'm fine with where we're at now knowing what we'd be giving up. Though I always hated the Marcum deal and do believe Lawrie will fulfill his potential and become a true superstar, getting Greinke whom I've always coveted(and still do) made it worth it.

 

But right now, spending money and taking a risk IMO is a lot less costly than spending prospects and taking a risk.

 

I'd rather go 2 years of Peavy at 25 million or so than even 3 at 30 or 33, but I really would do either because the team has a massive hole right now atop it's rotation. At least if you think or want to be a playoff contender.

 

Lester, in addition to costing 12.5 million over the next two years, is the exact type of pitcher the Red Sox SHOULD be building around. A 200 inning a year power lefty who's dominant at times and has the stuff to win a Cy Young?

 

The 4 years prior to last year(which wasn't even a bad year, just not a great one for Lester) he AVERAGED;

3.33 ERA

Threw 813 IP

Nearly 9K/9IP

 

Last year he threw over 200 innings, hits where up a bit, BB's and K's where down a bit, but he was also pitching on a depleted team. A rebuilding Red Sox team isn't likely to let their ace go for cheap.

 

 

Basically, I think we're in a better position to spend money right now than to trade players. Now if the Red Sox want to bring Mark Rogers back to the region with Mat Gamel, and a couple lesser prospects, maybe a Gomez, fine. But how likely is that?

[monty57]

I wouldn't go the trade route because it's a LOT easier to recover from overspending than it is to recover from giving up young prospects.

 

That's an interesting philosophical debte topic, but it could get circular, which I think you illustrated in your next paragraph. If you don't give up good, young prospects, then pretty soon you'll find that you no longer have to overspend.

 

The big question going into next year is do we have to do either (trade for a pitcher or get a pitcher in free agency). The "win now" mentality we've grown accustomed to says we will do one of the above, and in that case I would agree with your premise that signing a free agent to a 2-3 year deal would hurt us less than giving up prospects for someone with 2-3 years left on their contract.

 

However, there's a good case for the arguement that we don't have to do either. We could go into the 2013 season with the pitchers that nearly brought us out of the gutter and into the playoffs this season. That wouldn't be sexy, and some fans might complain that the Brewers aren't trying to win, but we certainly have at least five guys who have proven themselves to be MLB-ready starting pitchers.

 

Or, instead of trading away prospects, we could trade MLB players who are nearing free agency and for whom we have in-house replacements for good, young, less "proven" players at positions of need (SP in this case). That would certainly upset the "win now" theorists, but would get us both younger and cheaper and fill the perceived need amongst some that we need SP help going into next year.

[Kelbysdaddy]

Is it time for Billy Beane to start trading his pitchers?

 

I know you are being sarcastic here but I would look into seeing if he would give up Brett Anderson. He is signed through 2015 with two team buyouts and depending on what the Beane would want for Anderson I would definitely be interested in him. The Brewers would have him for his prime but he maybe to much of a injury risk to sign to a longer term deal or even give up the prospects needed for him.

 

.

getting anderson would be awesome! due to his injury history i doubt they would have to give up too much. he is very much a high risk/very high reward guy. the brewers could probably be ok with taking the chance with burgos and thornburg in AAA in case he gets hurt again.

[reillymcshane]

What about Bud Norris of Houston? Had a real nice 2011 before regressing last year. He's kept his peripherals about the same for the last three years. He's not great, but would have potential to improve on last year's numbers.

 

He's arby eligible next year for the first time, meaning we'd have him for three years. He's 27, so he should be entering his prime.

 

I don't know much about Norris other than what I've seen against the Brewers and the stats I see online. I don't see him developing as a upper tier rotation guy, but more a mid rotation guy. I don't know what he'd cost in a trade, but if that's the route you want to consider to add a veteran arm (instead of a FA), he might work.

 

Just a thought.

[TURBO]

What can Norris do that our youngsters can't?

 

That is the question I keep asking myself when thinking of pitchers to trade for...

[sveumrules]

Yo is for sure the #1.

 

Out of Fiers, Estrada, Rogers, Peralta, Thornburg and Burgos you have a good pool of internal candidates for those 3-5 spots.

 

The big issue I see is that we need another premium arm to pair with Yo. Maybe someday Peralta or Rogers can be that guy but counting on it for next year is a pretty big leap of faith and one I just can't see Melvin taking next year with how close this team is to contention.

[TURBO]

As long as we don't trade any of the guys you listed above for a #2 pitcher, I'm fine with bringing someone in, however, I'd prefer not to raid our farm system like we have been doing the past couple of years for a guy we only have for 2 years in the #2 spot.

[reillymcshane]

What can Norris do that our youngsters can't?

 

That is the question I keep asking myself when thinking of pitchers to trade for...

I believe that Norris has a far more likely chance to produce a 4.00ish ERA over 180 innings than any of Peralta, Rogers, Thornburg or Burgos in 2013.

 

People seem to think it's a given that several of our group of young pitchers are going to show up and throw league average ball next year. But it's just not that simple.

 

None of the above mentioned guys is a sure thing. They all have warts. Injury issues. Control problems. None of these guys is even guaranteed to be a 'top 100' prospect next year. But history is against more than one of them turning into a quality major league starting pitcher (I stress 'starting' pitcher). I'm not saying this because I think our players suck. I'm just looking at history. It's hard to become a quality major league starter.

 

Look at the Top 100 prospects in baseball (from baseball america) - http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/all-time.html

 

Pick a year from the early 2000s or late 1990s, and go through the players. You're lucky if 1/4 or even 1/3 of the pitchers have become quality starting pitchers in the majors. Many of the guys will become quality relievers - but the majority of them just end up not being any good. They get hurt. They can't throw strikes. Whatever. But top prospect pitchers are dicey subjects - at best. And if you limit your take to the top 50-100 slots (which is where our pitchers will likely fall if they make next year's list), success is even more fleeting.

 

And, some of the 'successes' simply take time. A guy might struggle for a year or two (or more) before becoming good.

 

So to think we are going to insert two rookies and have success is betting against a lot of history. Can it work? Sure. The A's did it this year. But it's rarely something that does work. And to think we can be the team that bucks history is a poor way to win in 2013.

 

Assuming we want to contend in 2103, the team is best if it only has one rookie in the rotation. If that person fails, you have others ready to step in. And players will fail. Sometimes forever. Other times they need to be shifted to relief. There's nothing wrong with that. It's part of the process. Also, there will be injuries. The more depth the better. And two of the probable starters - Estrada and Fiers - have a limited track record in the starting role in the majors. To have the extra arms available should either implode is essential.

 

Honestly, I hope Rogers, Thornburg and Peralta are all in the majors next year. One as a starter, the others in the bullpen. I like the idea of talented, strong, young arms being available. We seem to have no ability to develop not only starting pitchers, but relief pitchers as well. Most of our guys are other teams' rejects. The guys don't have to stay there forever. The chance might arise to move into starting due to injury or another player's ineffectiveness.

 

I guess many people are optimistic about our young players. That's great. I really am as well. But I think that if we are to contend in 2013, that relying on two of them to succeed in crucial roles is unrealistic.

[monty57]

So we should trade away several of our MLB-ready starting pitchers for a "proven" middle-of-the-rotation starter like Norris and put two others in the bullpen... no thanks

 

I agree that the odds are that we would be better next year if we forget about the future and focus all of our attention on getting the best, "proven" talent available, regardless of cost. However, I don't agree that this would be the best road to take when considering more than next year.

 

Estrada has been a starting pitcher for the Brewers for two years. How long until he's no longer considered an "unproven prospect?" Fiers cannot be considered young, and he pitched for the Brewers for half of this season and never looked overwhelmed, although he seemed to tire late in the year. I'm not sure, but I doubt he's considered a rookie anymore.

 

Of course there is risk to putting "unproven" guys out there, but there is also risk to putting "proven" guys out there. History is riddled with "proven" guys who fail. We are finally getting to a position where we will soon have "too much" young starting pitching. We're not there yet, but should be there in a year or two. If and when we get to that point, we will be able to name our suitor and bring back loads of talent in trade. That opportunity is the cost of trading away the young guys now to try to open the window a little bit more for next year. I'd rather not take that risk.

 

As I said earlier, if we don't want to go into the season with so much inexperience in the starting rotation, I'm sure we could find a vet on a one-year deal, or we could find a team with an overpaid starter they'd like to salary dump. We could afford to add on salary for one-year if it means we get the player for little to nothing in terms of players we'd have to give up. That may not "move the needle" next year as much as giving up the farm for a better pitcher, but we'd still have all of our prospects for future Brewer teams.

[reillymcshane]

So we should trade away several of our MLB-ready starting pitchers for a "proven" middle-of-the-rotation starter like Norris and put two others in the bullpen... no thanks

Where do I say we should trade away several MLB ready starters for bud Norris? That would be moronic. No where do I advocate this course of action. I suggest Norris as a potential rotation guy. If you don't like Norris that's fine. But I never said anything like you suggest.

[monty57]

If we could get a Bud Norris-type starter without giving up any of our talented prospects, then I'm all for it. I don't see that happening because three years of a proven middle-of-the-rotation guy like Norris should cost more than a couple of months of a proven top-of-the-rotation guy like Greinke. That means we'd give up multiple "unproven but talented" guys to land him, so Houston would probably require some package that would contain at least one of Peralta, Rogers, Thornburg group plus something from the near-MLB-ready group (Jungmann, Nelson, etc).

 

"Proven" costs a lot. "Proven with three years of inexpensive control" costs even more. Picking up someone like Norris, a proven #3 starter who could add some certainty to our coming rotations would mean giving up two or three guys who would not be too far away from being a part of our rotation, or at least the bullpen for 6+ years.