Gomez Extended

[Ennder]

Teams aren't proactive unless they have depth though, it just doesn't happen. The Brewers have never been trading from a position of depth. Find me one case of a team trading a guy just to be proactive about it, even one case. It is always they trade away a guy because they have depth coming up from the minors, they are in rebuild mode, or they need one last guy to make a playoff run. This scenario you suggest just does not happen.

 

James Shields was traded because of Alex Cobb and Chris Archer.

Ben Revere and Denard Span were traded because of Aaron Hicks and Joe Benson

 

etc, etc, etc.

[xisxisxis]

James Shields was traded because of Alex Cobb and Chris Archer.

Ben Revere and Denard Span were traded because of Aaron Hicks and Joe Benson

 

etc, etc, etc.

 

That's brilliant. I've never thought about it, but no baseball GM has traded away a player and not replaced him on the roster. It's possible, sure, but nobody has done it. In fact, it's never happened in any sport. Sure you can trade away James Shields and decide not to have a starting pitcher every 5th Game, or the Twins could just decide to not have a CF, but that would just be proactive....

[PrinceFielderx1]

I don't know if this was a good signing yet, and I'm pretty sure I'll never know.

[DuWayne Steurer]

 

People aren't citing specific trade rumors & belaboring the point; they've noticed genuine markets for players that Melvin could have, if he'd wanted to, likely found a good return for (like Hart & Ramírez last season).

 

If you want to assert that posters here talk about hypothetical trades as though they are done deals, I'd ask you to post an example of when that's happened. The hyperbole that gets thrown around when posters are shooting down people trying to discuss a proactive approach to team-building drives me batty.

 

 

The amount of trade scenarios that were thrown around here involving Ramirez before he had even played half of the first year of his 3 year deal with the Brewers was what drove me batty. We're not the Marlins, and Doug doesn't run the team like the Marlins. To suggest that he's going to sign a FA, and then trade him 80-ish games into his contract isn't at all realistic. The worst part about it was that it was (for the most part) people that just didn't like the Ramirez signing.

 

Well, obviously Dougie did, or he wouldn't have done it. Turning around and trading him right away just isn't his MO.

 

We can discuss all day whether or not Doug's team building strategy is sound (I'm having serious doubts about that, believe me), but there's nothing in Doug's MO to suggest he's going to "sign and trade", so when people say they're throwing out serious/fair/honest trade proposals that Doug could/would/should pursue, let's look at Doug's track record, and see if that's even a remote possibility.

 

You can call it dismissive, but truth is, there's no way Doug was trading A-Ram mid-season last year, and almost certainly wasn't going to this off-season.

 

I also question how many GM's would have wanted Ramirez's contract. And before someone says "eat some of the salary", should the Brewers really get in the habit of signing FA's to play somewhere between 80 and 160 games, and then paying part of the next 2 1/2 to three years worth of their contracts, just to be rid of them?

[valpocrewsader]

This scenario you suggest just does not happen.

 

James Shields was traded because of Alex Cobb and Chris Archer.

Ben Revere and Denard Span were traded because of Aaron Hicks and Joe Benson

 

So, couldn't career-year Bill Hall have been traded because of Hardy? (Instead of foolishly misplaying him in CF ... still bothers me.) Couldn't recent all-star JJ Hardy have been traded because of Escobar? Couldn't all-star Rickie Weeks have been traded because of Lawrie? Couldn't 104 RBI Casey McGehee have been traded because of Lawrie? Couldn't rising-stock Carlos Gomez have been traded because of Schafer (or Aoki)?

 

It's debatable whether or not these were the right (non-)moves to make, and maybe there were no takers in any of these situations, but it seems like the opportunities were there analogous to the Revere/Span ... Hicks/Benson example. Personally, I think Hall, Weeks, Gomez are giant wastes of money, avoidable with cheaper, younger, suitable replacements.

[TooLiveBrew]

 

People aren't citing specific trade rumors & belaboring the point; they've noticed genuine markets for players that Melvin could have, if he'd wanted to, likely found a good return for (like Hart & Ramírez last season).

 

If you want to assert that posters here talk about hypothetical trades as though they are done deals, I'd ask you to post an example of when that's happened. The hyperbole that gets thrown around when posters are shooting down people trying to discuss a proactive approach to team-building drives me batty.

The amount of trade scenarios that were thrown around here involving Ramirez before he had even played half of the first year of his 3 year deal with the Brewers was what drove me batty. We're not the Marlins, and Doug doesn't run the team like the Marlins. To suggest that he's going to sign a FA, and then trade him 80-ish games into his contract isn't at all realistic. The worst part about it was that it was (for the most part) people that just didn't like the Ramirez signing.

I agree, there's zero chance Melvin does it (iirc most discussing a potential Ramírez deal last season ceded as much). That doesn't mean it's necessarily not a good idea, or worthy of discussion. I think you should acknowledge that the main reason people were supportive of dealing Ramírez, aside from thinking the contract was a bad idea, was that he could genuinely bring back a solid return. It wasn't just discussing a salary dump.

 

And, yes, we certainly aren't the Marlins... a franchise that can boast two WS championships in half the timespan of the Brewers' existence.

[Ennder]

And, yes, we certainly aren't the Marlins... a franchise that can boast two WS championships in half the timespan of the Brewers' existence[qupte]

 

This comment is so silly that it isn't even worth commenting on. The best teams don't usually win the championship in most sports and the Marlin's teams that won these games were not better than the best teams we put out in the past 5 years, not even close.

[TooLiveBrew]

And, yes, we certainly aren't the Marlins... a franchise that can boast two WS championships in half the timespan of the Brewers' existence

This comment is so silly that it isn't even worth commenting on. The best teams don't usually win the championship in most sports and the Marlin's teams that won these games were not better than the best teams we put out in the past 5 years, not even close.

And yet, you commented. Naturally, you didn't respond to xisxisxis's or valpocrewsader's posts that completely refuted your previous post. You picked out the most cherry-pickable point & ran with that.

 

Obviously the best team in any given season doesn't win; that's true in every sport nearly every year. Yet the titles are still handed out & recorded for the historical record. The Marlins have two, the Brewers have zero. Anyone mocking the Marlins needs to be reminded of that.

 

Teams aren't proactive unless they have depth though, it just doesn't happen. The Brewers have never been trading from a position of depth. Find me one case of a team trading a guy just to be proactive about it, even one case.

The Brewers traded from a position of depth when they traded LaPorta, and when they traded Escobar & Cain. I don't agree with the long-term plan of which players they targeted with those trades, but to say they didn't trade from a position of depth is flat-out wrong.

 

For your "challenge," this past offseason the Diamondbacks traded a package including SP Trevor Bauer as part of a three-team deal (CIN-CLE-ARZ) to acquire SS Didi Gregorius. D-Backs being proactive about their SS position, and addressing it long-term.

 

KCR trading James Shields & Wade Davis for Wil Myers, Jake Odorizzi, Mike Montgomery, & Patrick Leonard. Rays being proactive about Shields, who they controlled through 2014 (Davis through '17).

 

NYY traded C Jesús Montero for SEA's SP Michael Pineda. Yankees being proactive about their rotation, trading a premium prospect at a position where they didn't have depth to theoretically fill a rotation spot for the foreseeable future.

 

Back in 2009, the Curtis Granderson trade: Tigers shipped off Granderson (to NYY) & Edwin Jackson (to ARZ), and in return got Max Scherzer & Austin Jackson. Not trading from positions of strength, but addressed positional needs for several seasons & capitalized on other franchises' desires to 'win now' with good longer-term planning.

 

I could also list all of the Marlins' trades last season as evidence of a team being proactive. But I'm certain you'll come up with reasons why everything I've posted isn't relevant.

 

I could go on & do more digging, but given that you won't accept anything I post, I'll leave it at this.

[PrinceFielderx1]

TLB,

 

I agree that when the Brewers traded LaPorta and Cain they traded from a position of depth, but when they traded Escobar they didn't. Why do you think they needed to get Yuni B from KC in that Greinke trade?

[monty57]

 

People aren't citing specific trade rumors & belaboring the point; they've noticed genuine markets for players that Melvin could have, if he'd wanted to, likely found a good return for (like Hart & Ramírez last season).

 

If you want to assert that posters here talk about hypothetical trades as though they are done deals, I'd ask you to post an example of when that's happened. The hyperbole that gets thrown around when posters are shooting down people trying to discuss a proactive approach to team-building drives me batty.

 

 

The amount of trade scenarios that were thrown around here involving Ramirez before he had even played half of the first year of his 3 year deal with the Brewers was what drove me batty. We're not the Marlins, and Doug doesn't run the team like the Marlins. To suggest that he's going to sign a FA, and then trade him 80-ish games into his contract isn't at all realistic. The worst part about it was that it was (for the most part) people that just didn't like the Ramirez signing.

 

Well, obviously Dougie did, or he wouldn't have done it. Turning around and trading him right away just isn't his MO.

 

We can discuss all day whether or not Doug's team building strategy is sound (I'm having serious doubts about that, believe me), but there's nothing in Doug's MO to suggest he's going to "sign and trade", so when people say they're throwing out serious/fair/honest trade proposals that Doug could/would/should pursue, let's look at Doug's track record, and see if that's even a remote possibility.

 

You can call it dismissive, but truth is, there's no way Doug was trading A-Ram mid-season last year, and almost certainly wasn't going to this off-season.

 

I also question how many GM's would have wanted Ramirez's contract. And before someone says "eat some of the salary", should the Brewers really get in the habit of signing FA's to play somewhere between 80 and 160 games, and then paying part of the next 2 1/2 to three years worth of their contracts, just to be rid of them?

 

I believe all the Ramirez posts last year sprung up because it was all over the news that the Dodgers wanted him and were willing to overpay for him. The Dodgers were just sold to some high-profile buyers who wanted to make a splash in L.A. (which takes a whole lot more than making a splash anywhere else). They made a trade for Carlos Lee which he rejected because he didn't want to pay CA taxes, making them all the more rabid to make a "big name" deal. Salary is basically a non-issue to the new ownership. They wanted name players, and were willing to give up their top prospects (including MLB ready guys) to get them. It was discussed a lot on this board, and while one of the arguements for making the deal was the salary owed, it wasn't just some blind speculation by people who don't like Ramirez or Melvin.

 

No one belives Melvin is going to start signing FAs simply to trade them away a couple of months later, so that's a big straw man. However, just because no GM signs players to multi-year deals with the intent of trading them in the first year, it is still possible that a unique scenario could arise where a good-faith offer is made and accepted, and a few months later, something unexpected happens leading to a one-time "out of character" response if it benefits the team.

[danzig6767]

 

I believe all the Ramirez posts last year sprung up because it was all over the news that the Dodgers wanted him and were willing to overpay for him. The Dodgers were just sold to some high-profile buyers who wanted to make a splash in L.A. (which takes a whole lot more than making a splash anywhere else). They made a trade for Carlos Lee which he rejected because he didn't want to pay CA taxes, making them all the more rabid to make a "big name" deal. Salary is basically a non-issue to the new ownership. They wanted name players, and were willing to give up their top prospects (including MLB ready guys) to get them. It was discussed a lot on this board, and while one of the arguements for making the deal was the salary owed, it wasn't just some blind speculation by people who don't like Ramirez or Melvin.

 

By multiple accounts which i've read in the paper, it was Attanasio who handled the negotiations with Boras on the Lohse signing and at the very least he entertained Ramirez for dinner during those negotiations.

 

Does that sound like an owner who would have been for his GM shopping Ramirez after the year he had with us last season and how Attanasio has mentioned that he'll generally side with a win now approach each given season unless the roster just looks really incapable of any chance to at least compete for a playoff berth?

[monty57]

 

I believe all the Ramirez posts last year sprung up because it was all over the news that the Dodgers wanted him and were willing to overpay for him. The Dodgers were just sold to some high-profile buyers who wanted to make a splash in L.A. (which takes a whole lot more than making a splash anywhere else). They made a trade for Carlos Lee which he rejected because he didn't want to pay CA taxes, making them all the more rabid to make a "big name" deal. Salary is basically a non-issue to the new ownership. They wanted name players, and were willing to give up their top prospects (including MLB ready guys) to get them. It was discussed a lot on this board, and while one of the arguements for making the deal was the salary owed, it wasn't just some blind speculation by people who don't like Ramirez or Melvin.

 

By multiple accounts which i've read in the paper, it was Attanasio who handled the negotiations with Boras on the Lohse signing and at the very least he entertained Ramirez for dinner during those negotiations.

 

Does that sound like an owner who would have been for his GM shopping Ramirez after the year he had with us last season and how Attanasio has mentioned that he'll generally side with a win now approach each given season unless the roster just looks really incapable of any chance to at least compete for a playoff berth?

 

I was just stating that there was a reason for the posts regarding a possible Ramirez-to-the-Dodgers deal last season. Of course the Brewers weren't shopping him, but it was widely reported that the Dodgers wanted him and were willing to give up good talent to get him.

 

This is hyperbole, but I would hope that if the Nationals called and said "we really like Lohse, we'll give you Strasberg for him," Attanasio wouldn't be so stupid as to turn it down simply because they just signed Lohse. If a team is willing to give you more than fair value for a player, take it.

[sveumrules]

So, couldn't career-year Bill Hall have been traded because of Hardy? (Instead of foolishly misplaying him in CF ... still bothers me.) Couldn't recent all-star JJ Hardy have been traded because of Escobar? Couldn't all-star Rickie Weeks have been traded because of Lawrie? Couldn't 104 RBI Casey McGehee have been traded because of Lawrie? Couldn't rising-stock Carlos Gomez have been traded because of Schafer (or Aoki?)

 

I would guess in the Hall/Hardy scenario that there was a limited market for Bill Hall as he had a short track record of major league success and no track record of minor league success. Teams properly didn't place value in his 1 breakout year.

 

As for Hardy/Escobar the timing was just wrong. Everybody thinks we should have sold high and traded Hardy after his 2008 season and before his 2009 decline. But at that point Escobar hadn't played above AA. When we did trade Hardy to clear room for Escobar before 2010, people still didn't think Escobar was ready at the plate.

 

Weeks/Lawrie is essentially the same situation. Sure you could've traded Weeks following his huge 2010, once again assuming there were takers that weren't scared off by his injury history and defense, but Lawrie hadn't played above AA and many weren't impressed by his offense or defense there.

 

McGehee/Lawrie is a combination of the scenarios. Teams probably didn't buy into McGehee for the same reasons they didn't buy into Bill Hall and Lawrie hadn't played a professional game at third base to that point.

[danzig6767]

 

By multiple accounts which i've read in the paper, it was Attanasio who handled the negotiations with Boras on the Lohse signing and at the very least he entertained Ramirez for dinner during those negotiations.

 

Does that sound like an owner who would have been for his GM shopping Ramirez after the year he had with us last season and how Attanasio has mentioned that he'll generally side with a win now approach each given season unless the roster just looks really incapable of any chance to at least compete for a playoff berth?

 

I was just stating that there was a reason for the posts regarding a possible Ramirez-to-the-Dodgers deal last season. Of course the Brewers weren't shopping him, but it was widely reported that the Dodgers wanted him and were willing to give up good talent to get him.

 

This is hyperbole, but I would hope that if the Nationals called and said "we really like Lohse, we'll give you Strasberg for him," Attanasio wouldn't be so stupid as to turn it down simply because they just signed Lohse. If a team is willing to give you more than fair value for a player, take it.

 

My only point was that whenever say a signing like Ramirez/Lohse happens or a socalled proactive trade doesn't happen involving a veteran, many here who were bothered by these things tend to lay all of their frustration at the feet of Melvin, while largely ignoring any influence which Attanasio may have on moves made or potentially not made.

 

I don't think any of us here know just exactly how much influence Attanasio has had over the years on any number of things. My gut feeling is he doesn't micromanage moves to include small stuff like say signing Yuni vs bringing up Morris, but i do believe that Melvin has to first discuss and get final approval on any sizable moves, be it signings or trades. That Mark may also have taken the lead in some or even all of the Suppan, Wolf, Ramirez, and Loshe signings.

 

Granted, i think that Melvin and Attanasio likely share fairly similar philosophies on trying to win now whenever they feel it's possible, but Mark just doesn't strike me as being like some owners who stay almost entirely out of baseball operations beyond setting a budget for a given season. He seems to enjoy being involved to at least some degree in how the team is constructed. This sure doesn't look to be a Packers like operation where Ted Thompson makes whatever moves he wants without any involvement from ownership.

[splitterpfj]

For better, and for worse, Carlos may be the most entertaining Brewer I've ever watched.

[afeter]

Seems like a good deal for a .300 hitter. His defense is just the icing.

[Ennder]

So, couldn't career-year Bill Hall have been traded because of Hardy? (Instead of foolishly misplaying him in CF ... still bothers me.) Couldn't recent all-star JJ Hardy have been traded because of Escobar? Couldn't all-star Rickie Weeks have been traded because of Lawrie? Couldn't 104 RBI Casey McGehee have been traded because of Lawrie? Couldn't rising-stock Carlos Gomez have been traded because of Schafer (or Aoki?)

 

Sure Hall could have been traded but this was the rebuilding tons of holes in the roster Brewers. You would have been trading him just to trade him.

 

JJ Hardy was traded because of Escobar so not sure what your point was here?

 

Nobody thought Lawrie would stick at 2B so that one doesn't make much sense either. The fact he has been a plus defensive 3B is a shock to most scouts.

 

Yeah the McGehee thing makes sense for sure but we traded Lawrie for a need and it was a need that McGehee probably wouldn't have fetched.

 

Schafer is nothing more than a 4th OF so no we couldn't trade Gomez. Gomez also doesn't have much value after last year imo, last year of contract, only one good season etc.

 

These are ok suggestions without taking into account reality but seriously other than McGehee none of these were really viable options.

[trwi7]

Nobody thought Lawrie would stick at 2B so that one doesn't make much sense either. The fact he has been a plus defensive 3B is a shock to most scouts.

 

Probably those that never watched him. He wasn't that bad when I saw him at 2nd. Moving to an easier position made him look better. Color me shocked.

[Ennder]

Nobody thought Lawrie would stick at 2B so that one doesn't make much sense either. The fact he has been a plus defensive 3B is a shock to most scouts.

 

Probably those that never watched him. He wasn't that bad when I saw him at 2nd. Moving to an easier position made him look better. Color me shocked.

 

His defense was purely dreadful in the minors while he was in our system and most agreed on it. You might not be shocked but people who earn a living judging this type of thing are.

[danzig6767]

So, couldn't career-year Bill Hall have been traded because of Hardy? (Instead of foolishly misplaying him in CF ... still bothers me.) Couldn't recent all-star JJ Hardy have been traded because of Escobar? Couldn't all-star Rickie Weeks have been traded because of Lawrie? Couldn't 104 RBI Casey McGehee have been traded because of Lawrie? Couldn't rising-stock Carlos Gomez have been traded because of Schafer (or Aoki?)

 

Sure Hall could have been traded but this was the rebuilding tons of holes in the roster Brewers. You would have been trading him just to trade him.

 

JJ Hardy was traded because of Escobar so not sure what your point was here?

 

Nobody thought Lawrie would stick at 2B so that one doesn't make much sense either. The fact he has been a plus defensive 3B is a shock to most scouts.

 

Yeah the McGehee thing makes sense for sure but we traded Lawrie for a need and it was a need that McGehee probably wouldn't have fetched.

 

Schafer is nothing more than a 4th OF so no we couldn't trade Gomez. Gomez also doesn't have much value after last year imo, last year of contract, only one good season etc.

 

These are ok suggestions without taking into account reality but seriously other than McGehee none of these were really viable options.

 

Some of your points are valid, but the Lawrie trade still bugs me and i wonder if a sizable factor in why it was made besides getting Marcum was the front office badly mis-evaluated just how good McGehee was as a long term option at thirdbase. Thus, they felt more willing to trade away Lawrie.

[Ennder]

I think the issue is more that we got 2 years of an injury prone starter instead of getting 3 or 4 years of a somewhat established upside guy. I didn't care for the Marcum deal even though I understand it. I still don't think the organization was sure Lawrie would stick at 3B, he made massive defensive improvements after we traded him. The Braun debacle at 3B probably made them quicker to dismiss him. Plus Lawrie is a complete tool and sometimes that really bothers teams.

[Outlander]

Seems like a god deal for a .300 hitter. His defense is just the icing.

The problem is his OBP is also .300. I agree he is an exciting player amd great defender, just wish he got on base more.

[Ennder]

While he hasn't taken a walk yet it is nice to see that his contact rate is up and his swinging strike % is down. His out of zone swing % is down as well so he isn't swinging at as many bad pitches. He is showing at least a little bit of growth as a hitter. The big step is to lay off pitches that are strikes or balls that he knows he can't drive. That is a step he probably will never take but if he could do that he would become a good hitter instead of just an adequate one. Being aggressive is fine as long as you are hitting good hitter's pitches. Gomez is just aggressive just to be aggressive though and that isn't a good thing.

[Fear The Chorizo]

If this version of Gomez is your everyday 7th or 8th place hitter, you have a pretty darn good offense. Getting Ramirez and Hart back is going to solidify that. Gomez's OBP deficiencies get masked a bit by the havoc he creates when he does get on base, and as long as he isn't slotted further up the batting order, I'm ok with his lack of walks if he's swinging at good pitches to hit and putting them in play consistently.

[monty57]

My only point was that whenever say a signing like Ramirez/Lohse happens or a socalled proactive trade doesn't happen involving a veteran, many here who were bothered by these things tend to lay all of their frustration at the feet of Melvin, while largely ignoring any influence which Attanasio may have on moves made or potentially not made.

 

I don't think any of us here know just exactly how much influence Attanasio has had over the years on any number of things. My gut feeling is he doesn't micromanage moves to include small stuff like say signing Yuni vs bringing up Morris, but i do believe that Melvin has to first discuss and get final approval on any sizable moves, be it signings or trades. That Mark may also have taken the lead in some or even all of the Suppan, Wolf, Ramirez, and Loshe signings.

 

Granted, i think that Melvin and Attanasio likely share fairly similar philosophies on trying to win now whenever they feel it's possible, but Mark just doesn't strike me as being like some owners who stay almost entirely out of baseball operations beyond setting a budget for a given season. He seems to enjoy being involved to at least some degree in how the team is constructed. This sure doesn't look to be a Packers like operation where Ted Thompson makes whatever moves he wants without any involvement from ownership.

 

I think he may take a bigger hand than many think he does. This tidbit is from the article on the Brewers' site about the recent signing of K-Rod to a minor league deal:

 

But Melvin downplayed the role John Axford's temporary demotion played in principal owner Mark Attanasio's interest in bringing back Rodriguez.

 

It looks like Attanasio might be a micro-manager. Let us not forget that Melvin lost his last job because he argued with Rangers' ownership that signing A-Rod to a $250MM deal wasn't a good idea. Anyone think Boras knows this and makes plenty of calls to Attanasio's direct line? (K-Rod is another Boras client).

 

On another topic, I've seen a number of posters here say something along the line of "he wasn't traded because he didn't have any trade value at the time." That's fine, but why then do we always offer that player an extension? If no one is willing to give us anything in trade, maybe we should take the hint and not extend them for multiple years at market wage.