Open for business (part 3)

[danzig6767]

 

What is wrong with putting an impact bat that plays SS at 2B? Why not stick another impact bat at SS at 3B? The Brewers made that first move with someone named Molitor, and later on, did the same with Gary Sheffield.

As much as i want the team to land some quality young arms if trades do get made, i agree in not wanting the team either to get so set on pitching that they were to accept noticeably lesser value simply to target pitching over position players.

 

When teams make trades for prospects, it's far from a given that those prospects will pan out for a variety of reasons. The by far most important factor when making a trade/trades is that some of those prospects actually pan out in the majors at some point. You'll never hear a baseball GM complain that he just has to many talented players if there become a logjam of varying degrees at a position or two. That allows a savvy GM a variety of options.

 

Unfortunately as fans we never get to listen in on trade discussions between the Brewers and other teams, so when a trade is really made or talks fizzle out, we don't get to know if potentially X trade offer was turned down at the same time the finished trade was made instead. Or if a certain player simply didn't draw the type of offers we as fans assumed. If the Brewers turned down say two offers for a player like Gomez and what exactly was offered to where it made sense to say no or the Brewers seemed to be expecting to much.

[lcbj68c]

You can do whatever you want with Doug Melvin, but the real problem is Attanasio. He feels the need compete every year and that is why we hold on to players too long, sign aging pitchers, and in the past a weak farm system. That is all to blame on Attanasio. Hard to find an ace when drafting mid 1st round every year.

 

Conjecture & hyperbole. Every team competes every year.

[danzig6767]

You can do whatever you want with Doug Melvin, but the real problem is Attanasio. He feels the need compete every year and that is why we hold on to players too long, sign aging pitchers, and in the past a weak farm system. That is all to blame on Attanasio. Hard to find an ace when drafting mid 1st round every year.

Conjecture & hyperbole. Every team competes every year.

Come on. Why go out of your way to ignore the obvious in how some teams around the league choose to put together their roster's each given season, with clear differing agendas from others.

 

When for example the Cubs and Astros purposely stripped down for multiple years as they went about building up their farm systems at the expense of their big leagues rosters, they weren't trying to "compete" during those years as most other teams in the league were, or as they currently are by trading prospects for veterans instead of selling off almost any veteran of value for prospects.

 

There is zero conjecture or hyperbole in that reality.

[jerichoholicninja]

Despite the sometimes ridiculousness of posters here, I would still rather discuss baseball at BF.net than with most real people. Recently hung out with some friends who are rather well-informed baseball fans and most of the talk was about the trade deadline and what the Brewers should do. It was generally head-smacking worthy. The general consensus among the group (me excluded) was that Khris Davis is terrible and should be traded and replaced with Shane Peterson, Parra should be resigned because he's the best OF the team has, there's no way Gomez should be traded, the Brewers should trade for draft picks instead of prospects, and the Aoki trade was terrible.

[rwa12]

The hold out for a haul technique worked well for Friedman in Tampa, seems Melvin is giving it a shot. I think we still see some turnover in the next few days. My guess (I won't commit to who), but someone will move that gives us a "wow" on the return. I think Lind moves, Parra, 2 assorted relievers, and maybe Segura. I don't think Gomez goes anywhere. I think out of those guys, one brings us back more than we thought. If I'm wrong, well, won't be the first time

[Boomer5]

I posted in the rumors section my thoughts on Parra. I was in the boat that once we get an offer better than what we paid for him, he should be gone.

 

Then I looked at this, particularliy the (small sample) lead off splits. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=parrage01&year=&t=b

 

Give me a good reason that we should trade a 28 year old lead off hitter like him for anything less than a big asset package rather than extend him?

[tmwiese55]

The logic is he's playing way over his head so sell high rather than give him a big contract and have him come back to reality while paying him 15mil a year.

[bill hAll Star]

I posted in the rumors section my thoughts on Parra. I was in the boat that once we get an offer better than what we paid for him, he should be gone.

 

Then I looked at this, particularliy the (small sample) lead off splits. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=parrage01&year=&t=b

 

Give me a good reason that we should trade a 28 year old lead off hitter like him for anything less than a big asset package rather than extend him?

 

I think that placement in the order can help/hurt guys, but I don't think batting leadoff is the reason for his monster year. I think the "oh, he's really turned it around after moving to the leadoff spot" gets overblown by announcers a lot. Sometimes hitting in front of a certain player gets you better pitches, but it's not some wacky mental change that makes you an All Star like some announcers seem to claim.

 

I think he'll be a .750-.775 guy that platoons (which I would love to have, but not for the money) and I'd rather just get what I can for him right now. Can always sign him back after the season.

[Boomer5]

I posted in the rumors section my thoughts on Parra. I was in the boat that once we get an offer better than what we paid for him, he should be gone.

 

Then I looked at this, particularliy the (small sample) lead off splits. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=parrage01&year=&t=b

 

Give me a good reason that we should trade a 28 year old lead off hitter like him for anything less than a big asset package rather than extend him?

 

I think that placement in the order can help/hurt guys, but I don't think batting leadoff is the reason for his monster year. I think the "oh, he's really turned it around after moving to the leadoff spot" gets overblown by announcers a lot. Sometimes hitting in front of a certain player gets you better pitches, but it's not some wacky mental change that makes you an All Star like some announcers seem to claim.

 

I think he'll be a .750-.775 guy that platoons (which I would love to have, but not for the money) and I'd rather just get what I can for him right now. Can always sign him back after the season.

 

Oh Id trade anyone for the right price. But Parra is now moving from the nice trade piece to a guy that I would just as soon extend rather than dump for anything less than a very significant package. If he was 34 instead of 28 Id be more concerned with his bump in production as being flukey.

 

I am becoming to become used to starting the game off with a guy standing on 2b. He might be our best lead off hitter since the Ignitor.

 

If they can pull of a very rare trade and sign, id be fine with that, but he would be a FA Id prioritize.

[BuckyBrewer61]

The logic is he's playing way over his head so sell high rather than give him a big contract and have him come back to reality while paying him 15mil a year.

 

This. My biggest beef with DM (or maybe I should say MA) over the years has been their inability to sell high on players, leaving us with numerous instances of veterans on the roster with declining performance to go with large contracts. I understand people wanting to keep Gomez, Lucroy, or even Parra because they have value. But you can't look at them in a vacuum - as it seem the Brewers always do. You also have to consider their likely decline as they age (particularly Lucroy, an almost 30-year old catcher), and the context of the major league team as a whole. Are Parra, Gomez, or Lucroy going to be significant contributors to a World Series, or even solid playoff caliber Milwaukee Brewers team? Unless you think the team as currently constructed fits that bill in the next 1-2 years, the answer is likely no. So why keep them? I love Lucroy and Gomez, but the prospects they could return have greater value to the franchise than their future contributions/contracts, IMHO. That's why I hope the Brewers sell and sell big.

[bill hAll Star]

Give me a good reason that we should trade a 28 year old lead off hitter like him for anything less than a big asset package rather than extend him?

 

I think that placement in the order can help/hurt guys, but I don't think batting leadoff is the reason for his monster year. I think the "oh, he's really turned it around after moving to the leadoff spot" gets overblown by announcers a lot. Sometimes hitting in front of a certain player gets you better pitches, but it's not some wacky mental change that makes you an All Star like some announcers seem to claim.

 

I think he'll be a .750-.775 guy that platoons (which I would love to have, but not for the money) and I'd rather just get what I can for him right now. Can always sign him back after the season.

 

Oh Id trade anyone for the right price. But Parra is now moving from the nice trade piece to a guy that I would just as soon extend rather than dump for anything less than a very significant package. If he was 34 instead of 28 Id be more concerned with his bump in production as being flukey.

 

Extending him is just going to waste most of his prime on a team that needs to rebuild.

 

Somebody could convince me that this core plus a few changes could maybe compete, but with the strength of the division and the recent history of trying to build around this group, there is no way I want to go that route.

 

So you're going to sign the guy based off of a contract year explosion, and then he's going to sit on a rebuilding team/one that is not going to be competitive and has some major short-term question marks like Gomez/Lucroy. If you sign Parra, while he may have some value in a year or two, you're just going to create more dead weight/not get value on a team that is going to be majorly in flux over the next 2 years. Why?

[Thurston Fluff]

Why would Parra want to sign with us? Offense is getting harder to come by these days. A player who not only has some offensive ability but can play sound defense at multiple positions will have plenty of choices. If I was in his shoes I would try to sign with a team that has a chance to win.

[Boomer5]

I love trades for prospects as much as anyone. I have been as tough on the joke of a farm system as anyone here. My point is that he isnt a Victorino/DeJesus type of meh trade fodder. Unless we can get a legitimate prospect package back, I would just as soon spend the efforts on an extension. This is not to say this team is ready to compete. They arent. But 28 year old lead off hitters who are 880 guys dont come around everyday.

 

Maybe Im getting to used to starting the game in Molitor fashion.

[bill hAll Star]

I love trades for prospects as much as anyone. I have been as tough on the joke of a farm system as anyone here. My point is that he isnt a Victorino/DeJesus type of meh trade fodder. Unless we can get a legitimate prospect package back, I would just as soon spend the efforts on an extension. This is not to say this team is ready to compete. They arent. But 28 year old lead off hitters who are 880 guys dont come around everyday.

 

Maybe Im getting to used to starting the game in Molitor fashion.

 

He was a mid-high .700s guy before this year, though. I'm not sure if he's finally coming into his own as a hitter or that he's just doing the contract year thing/getting a bit lucky.

 

This is not something I'm willing to gamble 30+ million dollars on when I'm rebuilding anyways. Even if every prospect the Brewers get back busts, they're not going to compete the next 2-3 years...so we've just saved Mark 20-30 million dollars.

[clancyphile]

 

What is wrong with putting an impact bat that plays SS at 2B? Why not stick another impact bat at SS at 3B? The Brewers made that first move with someone named Molitor, and later on, did the same with Gary Sheffield.

As much as i want the team to land some quality young arms if trades do get made, i agree in not wanting the team either to get so set on pitching that they were to accept noticeably lesser value simply to target pitching over position players.

 

When teams make trades for prospects, it's far from a given that those prospects will pan out for a variety of reasons. The by far most important factor when making a trade/trades is that some of those prospects actually pan out in the majors at some point. You'll never hear a baseball GM complain that he just has to many talented players if there become a logjam of varying degrees at a position or two. That allows a savvy GM a variety of options.

 

Unfortunately as fans we never get to listen in on trade discussions between the Brewers and other teams, so when a trade is really made or talks fizzle out, we don't get to know if potentially X trade offer was turned down at the same time the finished trade was made instead. Or if a certain player simply didn't draw the type of offers we as fans assumed. If the Brewers turned down say two offers for a player like Gomez and what exactly was offered to where it made sense to say no or the Brewers seemed to be expecting to much.

 

I've been of the opinion that just getting good players, and plugging them in would be better than trading them just to trade them.

 

I remember the Cirillo and Burnitz trades. That is kind of my fear with a Carlos Gomez trade. Hold out, get good value - and if not, then be willing to make the noises about an extension to Gomez and Lucroy. Lucroy may come at a decent price given this season's fall-off. I'd offer him a 3-year, $22.5 million extension - especially if the system still cranks out starting pitching prospects. Ditto for Gomez. I'll happily offer him 3 years, $36 million.

 

I might even go for the extensions if the farm system keeps developing other players. While Michael Reed would be my first choice as the bridge between Carlos Gomez and Monte Harrison/Trent Clark in center field, I wouldn't be crying in my Mountain Dew if the Brewers instead had Gomez directly hand it off to one of Harrison or Clark, with Reed as a 4th outfielder or replacing Khris Davis.

[Mudville9]

I posted in the rumors section my thoughts on Parra. I was in the boat that once we get an offer better than what we paid for him, he should be gone.

 

Then I looked at this, particularliy the (small sample) lead off splits. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=parrage01&year=&t=b

 

Give me a good reason that we should trade a 28 year old lead off hitter like him for anything less than a big asset package rather than extend him?

 

I think that placement in the order can help/hurt guys, but I don't think batting leadoff is the reason for his monster year. I think the "oh, he's really turned it around after moving to the leadoff spot" gets overblown by announcers a lot. Sometimes hitting in front of a certain player gets you better pitches, but it's not some wacky mental change that makes you an All Star like some announcers seem to claim.

 

I think he'll be a .750-.775 guy that platoons (which I would love to have, but not for the money) and I'd rather just get what I can for him right now. Can always sign him back after the season.

 

Oh Id trade anyone for the right price. But Parra is now moving from the nice trade piece to a guy that I would just as soon extend rather than dump for anything less than a very significant package. If he was 34 instead of 28 Id be more concerned with his bump in production as being flukey.

 

I am becoming to become used to starting the game off with a guy standing on 2b. He might be our best lead off hitter since the Ignitor.

 

If they can pull of a very rare trade and sign, id be fine with that, but he would be a FA Id prioritize.

 

 

I don't believe we should be extending anyone over 26 years old unless they are a monster. If we extend Parra for three years, we suck for two and we are in the same boat probably 3 years from now trying to trade a 32 year old instead of a 28 year old. Trade him for the best package you can and hope its worth more than a supplemental pick.

[bill hAll Star]

I remember the Cirillo and Burnitz trades. That is kind of my fear with a Carlos Gomez trade. Hold out, get good value - and if not, then be willing to make the noises about an extension to Gomez and Lucroy. Lucroy may come at a decent price given this season's fall-off. I'd offer him a 3-year, $22.5 million extension - especially if the system still cranks out starting pitching prospects. Ditto for Gomez. I'll happily offer him 3 years, $36 million.

 

I'm sorry, but even though those guys did stay around for cheaper/take extensions a few years ago because their stock wasn't high and they probably do love playing in Milwaukee, they'd laugh at you.

 

If Gomez has a nice year next year, he could probably turn in a 5 year, $90 million dollar deal with more TV revenue starting to kick in.

[tmwiese55]

Lucroy may come at a decent price given this season's fall-off. I'd offer him a 3-year, $22.5 million extension - especially if the system still cranks out starting pitching prospects. Ditto for Gomez. I'll happily offer him 3 years, $36 million.

 

If you can sign them to those extension it will only increase their trade values. That's not even in the ballpark of what these guys are looking for. Though you could probably talk Lucroy into something reasonable since he hasn't made any money yet and might value the comfort of having 35-40mil in the bank no matter what

[bill hAll Star]

This may sound greedy to some - as Gomez and Lucroy both have about 200x (or more) the money in the bank than most of us do, but this is both of their one chances to become super mega, mega millionaires. It is very, very rare to find a professional player or human on this planet that is going to concede that opportunity.

[clancyphile]

I was spitballing on the extensions, but at the same time, I'd look to extend at least Lucroy and Gomez. Gomez, in particular, I'd try to work for a hometown discount - maybe in the $15 million/year range.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I was spitballing on the extensions, but at the same time, I'd look to extend at least Lucroy and Gomez. Gomez, in particular, I'd try to work for a hometown discount - maybe in the $15 million/year range.

 

 

The hometown discount is almost entirely a myth. Once in a great great while you find that magical unicorn who wants to stay where he's at and is willing to take a paycut to do so, but that's really quite rare.

 

Besides all that, Gomez is approaching 30, and his main skill (speed) is going to take a nosedive really quickly. I want no part of his mega-contract.

[MrTPlush]

I was spitballing on the extensions, but at the same time, I'd look to extend at least Lucroy and Gomez. Gomez, in particular, I'd try to work for a hometown discount - maybe in the $15 million/year range.

 

Gomez is 110% hitting the open market and not going to be had for $15mil a year. Extending Gomez would be stupid. He is getting old and likely to decline pretty fast. His speed/defense value will deminish fast. Extending Lucroy makes even less sense.

 

No thanks...

[tmwiese55]

This is their one big payday of their career, they both have every right to maximize it. Gomez at least had that 30mil contract, Lucroy has gotten next to nothing (relatively speaking of course) for an MLB player. Gomez is going to get 100mil plus. Lucroy having two cheap years left still could probably be pressured to take a team friendly deal just so he puts money in the bank. I guess I wouldn't be totally opposed to it if it was super team friendly but no way on a Molina type extension. It sounds like he wants to play for a contender and he's our best chip to jump start the rebuild.

[yfinn6]

This may sound greedy to some - as Gomez and Lucroy both have about 200x (or more) the money in the bank than most of us do, but this is both of their one chances to become super mega, mega millionaires. It is very, very rare to find a professional player or human on this planet that is going to concede that opportunity.

 

It's not greedy, it's just economics - particularly those in professional sports. It's why teams like the Brewers have to get what they can for players at their peak, and then also trade high or before the player prices himself out of town (nothing new here).

 

I've never really believed in the hometown discount. Had Prince Fielder given the Brewers a hometown discount, he would have given up what, $114 Million? That's just terrible business on his part.

[monty57]

Why would Parra want to sign with us? Offense is getting harder to come by these days. A player who not only has some offensive ability but can play sound defense at multiple positions will have plenty of choices. If I was in his shoes I would try to sign with a team that has a chance to win.

 

Exactly. There is very little risk right now for Parra to play for a couple more months and then become a free agent, so the only way we could extend him is by offering at or above what he and his agent believe to be their peak free agent range. There is no reason for him to sign an extension for less than perceived market value. Also, since anything can happen in the free agent market, he may well want to hold out just to see if his perceived market value is lower than what the actual market value ends up becoming. So the first barrier to an extension is that Parra probably wouldn't want to sign it.

 

Then, knowing we would have to make essentially a winning free agent bid to sign the extension, we would have to decide if it makes sense to offer that kind of money to that kind of player in our current situation. With our current roster, we have one of the worst records in baseball. Signing this extension would eat up much of the money being saved from Ramirez, Lohse and Broxton coming off the books. With the deferred money owed and raises due, we would be near our max payroll. Signing him would also almost mandate the trade of Gomez, unless we would relegate Davis to a bench role.

 

So, would Parra getting paid a lot more money improve our 2016 team to the extent that it would be worth taking the risk of signing him to a big money, long-term deal? I'd argue "no." He has not been worth anywhere near the $15M or so people are saying he could get in any year of his career except this one, so you are very likely to pay a guy $15M a year for 3-4 years when he's worth around $6-8M, which would seriously hamper any future attempts at putting together a winning roster. Even if he does keep up his current pace, it will probably be for a team that is below .500. The upside potential doesn't outweigh the downside risk.