Segura & Brewers suspend extension talks again; would you consider shopping him?

[TooLiveBrew]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/03/brewers-contemplating-extension-offer-to-segura.html

 

MARCH 25th: Talks between Segura and the Brewers have been suspended, reports Chris Cotillo of MLBDailyDish.com. With the sides facing a substantial gap between their respective valuations at this point, says Cotillo, there are no current plans to re-open discussions.

 

I know there's basically a zero percent chance of this happening in the real world. But I'm really curious to hear who would & who wouldn't consider trying to sell high on Segura if this report is true. If there's a "substantial gap" for the second season in a row... ?

 

Given how prized service time is right now, if Jean has a great first-half or so, I would definitely make him available. If you could get one of the top pitching prospects in the game (plus potentially more), don't you have to at least consider that?

[monty57]

I kind of thought this would happen once Simmons raised the dollar value with his signing.

 

I'd always consider an offer if someone bowled me over, but I think that with players who want to go season-to-season through free agency, the Brewers should start to shop them in their first or second year of arbitration. It would really need to be a phenomenal offer to get me to trade him now, as that would mean Bianchi/Herrera would be our SS. However, while they don't have a replacement now, if they wait a couple of years Arcia may be ready to take over for league minimum, and Segura should still have a lot of trade value.

 

I do think the Brewers should take the hint, which is something they couldn't do with Fielder. If a player is willing to take the risk, he has every right to go year-to-year to free agency. If he risks it in his pre-arbitration years, he is very unlikely to extend in his arbitration years, when the risk is lessened and he's earning much better money. The Brewers need to figure out their plan moving forward and trade him while he still has "team control" remaining. They've got plenty of time to groom his replacement, so form a plan now... don't let this end up like our first base situation.

[jerichoholicninja]

If he's able to repeat his 2013 first half for all of 2014 I think seeing if you can move him for a SP and 1B prospect would be a beneficial move.

[Warning Track Power]

Starling Marte just signed a 6 year $31 million (~$5m AAV) deal for Pittsburgh and Simmons just got 7 years $58 million (~$8m AAV)...I say split the difference and give Segura ~$6.5 AAV over 7 years (7 years $45.5 m)

 

Baseball Reference had Simmons as a 6.9 WAR player in 2013, Marte as a 5.4 WAR player and Segura as a 3.9 WAR player. Given position scarcity at SS, I am willing to pay Segura more but not at the level of Simmons. If Segura doesn't take this then I think he has an inflated sense of worth in today's market.

[JohnBriggs12]

The Brewers got Carlos Gomez for JJ Hardy. There's plenty of time to trade Segura even in his arbitration years, but I wouldn't think about it until there is a replacement ready from within.

[monty57]

If Segura doesn't take this then I think he has an inflated sense of worth in today's market.

 

He may just not be interested in extending, preferring to maximize his potential payout by going year-to-year until free agency, but he isn't going to flat out say it (bad PR move), so he'll just listen to the Brewers' extension offers and politely say "no thanks." That's the way Fielder was, and I don't hold it against players like that, but I think the Brewers need to have a different strategy than they used with Fielder. It seemed obvious to everyone except the Brewers that Fielder was not going to be a Brewer beyond his six years of "team control," so I hope the Brewers learned from that.

[paul253]

I'd be hesitant to give Segura $6-$7 million right now. As good as his overall numbers were last year let's not forget his numbers in the second half were very pedestrian. .214/.268/.315. The Brewers have killed themselves in the past by giving contract extensions to guys who have only had one or two good seasons and got lucky when guys they tried to extend turned down the offers. I realize a small market team like Milwaukee has to take chances and extend guys before the get too extensive but that doesn't mean they should be reckless about it. Segura is still under control for four more years I believe so there is no rush at all. Of course Milwaukee could help themselves out by actually developing a shortstop prospect of their own so, like pitching, they are forced to constantly overpay for quality.

[brewcrewdue80]

I don't see shopping a SS you don't have a ready replacement for. The other thing is what are the amount of years being discussed? It's one thing if this holds true for the team controlled years. It's another thing when the sides have a gap that are talking Free Agent years. You hold on to Segura no matter what happens in these discussion this season and next barring some, "they are nuts to be offering up this package for Segura trade proposal".

 

I'm in the wait through this season camp to look at an extension. Marte's deal now that it's done is the kind of deal I think Segura has to attach himself to. The difference though is that Segura likely has been trying to attach himself to the Castro/Andrus/Simmons deals for money...Andrus' extension and pay really inflated SS price tag.

 

The thing for me with doing an extension is why rush it to save a few to 10 mil? Like I posted in the Weeks' thread there is a large influx of SSs having begun their careers or about to, I feel the rush to extend a SS 3-4 years ago would make a ton of sense. But now? There will be plenty of them out there that will be serviceable. Also, what about Arcia? I approach it as give Segura and Arcia a full season to truly get a gauge of what their future may be. We could be looking at extending Segura 6-7years only to now be locked in a deal blocking Arcia. Let's say Segura kind of busts out being under .700OPS moving forward? You've essentially guaranteed a contract where when the payment gets high/Arcia is ready to join the club and Segura is an unmovable Roster'd player.

What about Gennett in this? Again Arcia is your SS of the future and sure Segura can go back to the keystone 2b position. Only what if Gennett is a 12-15HR .285-.310 BA player at that time?

I feel like not extending Segura may open the door to make a great trade in the future with Segura for some kind of serious impact player the club needs. I'm thinking Dodgers/Yankees in this idea where the money to extend Segura won't matter, and he becomes a long term solution for them 2years from now.

Now, if we didn't have Arcia in the pipelines, I'd be doing a 180 and say, meet Segura's demands today or pretty damn close to his demands.

[Kelbysdaddy]

jean isn't even eligible for arby for 2 more seasons. suggesting shopping him is jumping the gun. let him make 500k for the next couple years and see where he stands. maybe arcia hits his potential or a draft pick this year flies through the minors. not that either is super likely no need to add another contract to hinder budget for a few years if he's rickie 2.0.

[TheCrew07]

The thing for me with doing an extension is why rush it to save a few to 10 mil? Like I posted in the Weeks' thread there is a large influx of SSs having begun their careers or about to, I feel the rush to extend a SS 3-4 years ago would make a ton of sense. But now? There will be plenty of them out there that will be serviceable. Also, what about Arcia? I approach it as give Segura and Arcia a full season to truly get a gauge of what their future may be. We could be looking at extending Segura 6-7years only to now be locked in a deal blocking Arcia.

 

I'll go back to the argument I made when trying to sell people on moving Hardy for pitching. Any core player who is locked up early and performs becomes more valuable because his wins are being bought at a discounted rate. The longer the player is signed, the greater value he has. As such, the idea should be to sign as many of those contracts as possible with that kind of player. As Monty and I have pointed out repeatedly and TLB notes in the opening post, if the player won't sign, then he has to treated be differently from an organizational perspective.

 

When you have multiple players at a single position, both with legitimate talent and longevity of service, the team has the ability to make decisions based on more on than just contract length(service time) and cost. 1 of those 2 players can be moved for a position of greater need, such as pitching. If you think the MLB player will ultimately be better you can try a prospect for prospect deal, if you think the prospect has more upside you can move the MLB player (whom almost always will have the greater trade value) for multiple potential impact pieces or 1 player *that* good.

 

The goal should be flexibility of talent not payroll flexibility. Talent is the true currency, and pitching talent is like gold where as positional talent is like silver. Always be looking to trade up in value...

 

There shouldn't be anything such as a team friendly deal "blocking" a player, especially one who didn't hit all that well in A ball. I'm high on Arcia, but Arcia's progress as a prospect should have nothing do with how the team handles Segura. Either Jean wants the security or the bigger pay day, he gets the choice, whatever he chooses is fine. However, the team has to adjust accordingly and look to maximize their return from his service. If the Brewers are below .500 what does holding onto Segura matter if he can moved for a position of greater need? I will always take a prospect over a draft pick, and I'll certainly take multiple impact prospects over a single comp pick.

 

If Jean signs then he becomes part of the long-term core of the team, if not then the Brewers have to correctly assess where they are a franchise when the trade proposals come in. You certainly wouldn't give him away, but if he's going to walk anyway and the deal is good enough, why not pull the trigger? The ideal time would likely be in that 2nd to last arbitration year, but the Brewer MO is to wait until that last year before FA and make a decision at the trade deadline. That to me is arbitrary, I'm looking to maximize the possible return, so I'm more concerned with the players' maximum trade value, rather than impending free agency.

 

edit. reread this post and correct a repetitive mistake, "contract length and service time" was supposed to be "service time & cost" when I was originally writing the paragraph.

[3and2Fastball]

The time to trade Segura is in the winter before his final year with the Brewers, before he goes into free agency

[DHonks]

he's under our control for 4 more years after this season...I see no reason to talk about shopping him yet. Now in 2 years, it's quite possible.

[Invader3K]

I'd approach him after this season and give it one more shot...if he balks again at that point, you can look at doing something.

[reillymcshane]

Trading Segura now doesn't make sense. As many have pointed out, he's cheap and there's no obvious replacement for him in the near future. And the team is trying to win now. Downgrading the position would be counter productive. If we have a potential replacement in a few years, then you can consider moving him. But now makes no sense.

[TooLiveBrew]

Trading Segura now doesn't make sense. As many have pointed out, he's cheap and there's no obvious replacement for him in the near future. And the team is trying to win now. Downgrading the position would be counter productive. If we have a potential replacement in a few years, then you can consider moving him. But now makes no sense.

Maybe it's as simple as us disagreeing, but as I laid out in the OP, the "now" timing would be to sell as high as possible & capitalize on the prized service time. Naturally it downgrades the positional side of the MLB club in the short term, but as is probably evident from other posts, I wouldn't manage the MLB roster/organization in the same way that Melvin & Co. do. If you're netting an elite-talent-tier SP under team control for 5+ seasons, the team could be even a bit better than it is today.

[danzig6767]

Trading Segura now doesn't make sense. As many have pointed out, he's cheap and there's no obvious replacement for him in the near future. And the team is trying to win now. Downgrading the position would be counter productive. If we have a potential replacement in a few years, then you can consider moving him. But now makes no sense.

Maybe it's as simple as us disagreeing, but as I laid out in the OP, the "now" timing would be to sell as high as possible & capitalize on the prized service time. Naturally it downgrades the positional side of the MLB club in the short term, but as is probably evident from other posts, I wouldn't manage the MLB roster/organization in the same way that Melvin & Co. do. If you're netting an elite-talent-tier SP under team control for 5+ seasons, the team could be even a bit better than it is today.

 

How many times in say the last 10 years or longer has a high upside player been traded for prospects after only two big league seasons, assuming Segura has another fine year this season and especially at the important shortstop position?

 

Hey, Melvin/Attanasio do things at times i'm certainly no fan off either, but if hypothetically the team can't work out an extension with Segura after the season and they also make no attempts to shop him, that wouldn't exactly be some sort of short term thinking which was fairly exclusive to how the Brewers front office operates given at least off the top of my head, i can't recall any trades like that happening in baseball with a quality second year player. My memory sometimes can be lacking though and maybe you have some examples that could be pointed out. If so, i'd love to hear the details.

 

FWIW, i'm of the belief that except in rare instances like a non-really old true franchise QB in football, a true star in the NBA, and i guess Mike Trout in baseball, pretty much nobody else in pro sports should be considered completely off limits to being traded. The devil is then in the details. Player X for exactly what in return. Obviously though certain athletes for a variety of reasons would require a much higher return to even bother staying on the phone and listening to what another team would give up.

[craigharmann]

My answer is no. Here's why. Hardy was traded because Escobar was coming up quickly. Then.....Escobar became a chip for Greinke. Then.....you're left with Yuni. You trade Mean Jean and what are you left with? Bianchi? Yuni? Reynolds? Makes no sense. Keep him.

[danzig6767]

My answer is no. Here's why. Hardy was traded because Escobar was coming up quickly. Then.....Escobar became a chip for Greinke. Then.....you're left with Yuni. You trade Mean Jean and what are you left with? Bianchi? Yuni? Reynolds? Makes no sense. Keep him.

 

I agree with you in that i wouldn't under any circumstances shop Segura iaround n the offseason, regardless if he still balks at signing an extension simply because i wouldn't want that getting back to him/his agent when the odds are slim any deal would actually end up being completed.

 

That said, like i mentioned in my previous post, only a select few players in pro sports should be off limits completely. So if i'm Melvin and a team calls me about Segura, i'd at least listen to the offer, but it would take a lot to say yes and i also wouldn't be going around calling a bunch of other teams because in today's media world, odds are pretty high that shopping would get leaked. That wouldn't be good.

[PrinceFielderx1]

The Brewers should have made their initial offer much high, then knew what they had, which is why they wanted to extend him so soon. When you do this you can't low ball you actually have to shock him with your offer. I stand by my opinion that the Brewers messed up the negotiations.

[HiAndTight]

I'd be hesitant to give Segura $6-$7 million right now. As good as his overall numbers were last year let's not forget his numbers in the second half were very pedestrian. .214/.268/.315. The Brewers have killed themselves in the past by giving contract extensions to guys who have only had one or two good seasons and got lucky when guys they tried to extend turned down the offers. I realize a small market team like Milwaukee has to take chances and extend guys before the get too extensive but that doesn't mean they should be reckless about it. Segura is still under control for four more years I believe so there is no rush at all. Of course Milwaukee could help themselves out by actually developing a shortstop prospect of their own so, like pitching, they are forced to constantly overpay for quality.

 

 

When have they been killed by it?

Bill Hall didn't work out.

Yet Ryan Braun certainly did, as did Lucroy, Gallardo.

 

Someone else can add up what they THINK those players would have gotten if they went year to year rather than the Brewers signing them in their pre-arby years.

 

I think Luc's 5 year 11 million dollar deal taking him to his FA year and Braun's 8 year 45 million dollar deal saved or will save the Brewers what they spent on Hall a couple times over.

 

 

They've been pretty good about signing young guys to very smart, team friendly deals.

[HiAndTight]

Trading Segura now doesn't make sense. As many have pointed out, he's cheap and there's no obvious replacement for him in the near future. And the team is trying to win now. Downgrading the position would be counter productive. If we have a potential replacement in a few years, then you can consider moving him. But now makes no sense.

Maybe it's as simple as us disagreeing, but as I laid out in the OP, the "now" timing would be to sell as high as possible & capitalize on the prized service time. Naturally it downgrades the positional side of the MLB club in the short term, but as is probably evident from other posts, I wouldn't manage the MLB roster/organization in the same way that Melvin & Co. do. If you're netting an elite-talent-tier SP under team control for 5+ seasons, the team could be even a bit better than it is today.

 

 

To what end though? Are you going to talk to the players you're going to trade for and ask them if they'd be willing potentially to sign team friendly deals IF they have a really good year and a half? I would think that would obviously not happen.

 

So what are you going to do then? Keep trading anyone who won't sign a Lucroy/Braun type deal(even adjusted for the money flooding MLB) this early into their careers? You're never going to get any momentum.

 

We control him for 5 more years as it stands right now. Plenty of time to move him down the road. As for them "learning their lesson," from Prince as several have said, what lesson? They had a very good team AND they tried to trade Prince and had a very lukewarm trade market for him. So instead they kept him and made a very legitimate run at a World Series.

 

I don't know what lesson there is to be learned there. They tried to sign him, he didn't want to, they then looked to trade him, couldn't find a worthwhile deal, added some pitching, nearly won it all. Worked out pretty well for us. And it could work out even better if Haniger and Coulter end up becoming solid big leaguers.

[JackNicholson1974]

It was nice that the Brewers tried to extend him, but I wouldnt lose sleep over not getting it done. I think Jean is a nice player, I really like him, but he was playing way over his head the first 3 months of last season. If he has another good season try to extend him again. If he plays like he did in the second half of last season he is going to wish he signed the extension.

[paul253]

When have they been killed by it?

 

Rickie Weeks is another contract that is killing us right now and the jury is still out on the Gomez extension. And while he wasn't one of our young guys the contract he gave Suppan was ridiculous given Suppan's career numbers up to that point. Plus we kind of lucked out that long term deals with McGehee and Axford never panned out despite the conversations.

[TheCrew07]

Hall and Weeks aren't the kind of deals we're really suggesting, those are the kind of deals you get when you extend someone who's already into arbitration or a FA.

[TooLiveBrew]

When have they been killed by it?

 

Rickie Weeks is another contract that is killing us right now and the jury is still out on the Gomez extension. And while he wasn't one of our young guys the contract he gave Suppan was ridiculous given Suppan's career numbers up to that point. Plus we kind of lucked out that long term deals with McGehee and Axford never panned out despite the conversations.

Weeks's contract isn't close to killing the team.