Gomez not traded/Flores cries/Alderson angry/Haudricourt confused/Melvin nonplussed/Gomez=Not Injured/Scott Boras MAD/Mets are lying liars

[clancyphile]

I'd view it as:

Hader/Santana for Gomez

Houser/Phillips for Fiers

 

The Gomez part is an easy win for the Crew just on Hader's key role in the bullpen over the last three years.

 

The indirect return of Moustakas for Phillips makes the Fiers part a win as well.

 

Oddly enough, this becoming a huge win for the Crew is still TBD... Santana was dealt for Ben Gamel/Zavolas, annd depending on how Zavolas develops, the Gomez part could really become a fleecing.

 

The Fiers part is also TBD, because Houser is just now starting in MLB... and as such, if he becomes a rotation mainstay (or even a solid back-end type for 2-3 years), he could net the Crew a nice haul (ala Davies) or be extended (if he is a #1/#2 type).

[adambr2]

The Gomez/Fiers trade was not two separate deals and I don't know why people are viewing it like that in retrospect. Fiers did not "net" Phillips and Houser. Gomez was obviously the key player, but both were needed to get the type of quality return that the Brewers got. Phillips would never have come close to being obtained with Fiers alone. While it didn't work out that way, Brett Phillips was considered the cornerstone of this deal and would likely not have been included without the totality of what we gave up and certainly not without including Carlos Gomez who was the key piece from our side.

 

The trade is clearly a massive win for the Brewers.

[MrTPlush]

They way I look at it is if we approached them with Fiers alone asking for Phillips/Houser I’m guessing they say no.

 

Also maybe they were willing to give up Santana/Hader, but it just wasn’t quite enough for them to give up Phillips too. Part of Phillips value may have been traded for Gomez...but since you can’t trade half a player you gotta add something to even it out.

[brewcrewdue80]

The Gomez/Fiers trade was not two separate deals and I don't know why people are viewing it like that in retrospect. Fiers did not "net" Phillips and Houser. Gomez was obviously the key player, but both were needed to get the type of quality return that the Brewers got. Phillips would never have come close to being obtained with Fiers alone. While it didn't work out that way, Brett Phillips was considered the cornerstone of this deal and would likely not have been included without the totality of what we gave up and certainly not without including Carlos Gomez who was the key piece from our side.

 

The trade is clearly a massive win for the Brewers.

Oral history of the trade that was and then wasn't:

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/wilmer-flores-changed-baseball-history-by-crying

 

Moving this thread temporarily back to the MLB forum so people can relive the drama.

 

Its based on the revisit on how the trade went down reading the link above. Its one trade, yes, Gomez for Hader and Santana was on the table. Wanting Phillips, Melvin suggested adding Fiers if they'd give them a 4th prospect. From a list he chose Houser, thus the comps of 2 separate trades in 1 single trade.

[brewerfan82]

Its based on the revisit on how the trade went down reading the link above. Its one trade, yes, Gomez for Hader and Santana was on the table. Wanting Phillips, Melvin suggested adding Fiers if they'd give them a 4th prospect. From a list he chose Houser, thus the comps of 2 separate trades in 1 single trade.

The problem with this is that obviously Melvin didn't accept a Gomez for Hader/Santana trade without expanding it to get another piece he wanted. So you really can't say that it *was* two trades since he wouldn't accept it on its own. That said, it's easier to evaluate the trade as a whole if you can break it into smaller theoretical trades in which you deem one of the teams won all of. Probably just semantics, but I can see why it's a little irking to hear people call it two trades.

[adambr2]

Its based on the revisit on how the trade went down reading the link above. Its one trade, yes, Gomez for Hader and Santana was on the table. Wanting Phillips, Melvin suggested adding Fiers if they'd give them a 4th prospect. From a list he chose Houser, thus the comps of 2 separate trades in 1 single trade.

The problem with this is that obviously Melvin didn't accept a Gomez for Hader/Santana trade without expanding it to get another piece he wanted. So you really can't say that it *was* two trades since he wouldn't accept it on its own. That said, it's easier to evaluate the trade as a whole if you can break it into smaller theoretical trades in which you deem one of the teams won all of. Probably just semantics, but I can see why it's a little irking to hear people call it two trades.

 

Yeah, some trades just don't work on their own. To me Phillips+Houser for Fiers is a little misleading because it implies that trade on its own works. There's absolutely no way if we had pulled Gomez off the table and made that offer for Fiers that it would have stood a chance of being accepted.

 

And as you mentioned, just because we were offered Hader+Santana for Gomez doesn't mean that that offer worked for us without the additional pieces. Ultimately, that's not an offer that we accepted.

[brewcrewdue80]

Its based on the revisit on how the trade went down reading the link above. Its one trade, yes, Gomez for Hader and Santana was on the table. Wanting Phillips, Melvin suggested adding Fiers if they'd give them a 4th prospect. From a list he chose Houser, thus the comps of 2 separate trades in 1 single trade.

The problem with this is that obviously Melvin didn't accept a Gomez for Hader/Santana trade without expanding it to get another piece he wanted. So you really can't say that it *was* two trades since he wouldn't accept it on its own. That said, it's easier to evaluate the trade as a whole if you can break it into smaller theoretical trades in which you deem one of the teams won all of. Probably just semantics, but I can see why it's a little irking to hear people call it two trades.

 

Yeah, some trades just don't work on their own. To me Phillips+Houser for Fiers is a little misleading because it implies that trade on its own works. There's absolutely no way if we had pulled Gomez off the table and made that offer for Fiers that it would have stood a chance of being accepted.

 

And as you mentioned, just because we were offered Hader+Santana for Gomez doesn't mean that that offer worked for us without the additional pieces. Ultimately, that's not an offer that we accepted.

 

From the horse's mouth:

Melvin: Hader and Domingo Santana were the two main guys in the trade. I kept trying to get Brett Phillips, and Jeff had asked about [Mike] Fiers.

 

Fiers: I still had another full season before arbitration, so I would have thought Milwaukee would have kept me. But we had a lot of young pitchers coming up, and I was a little older [30] at the time, and they weren’t trying to win.

 

Melvin: I said, “Jeff, we can expand this deal. I’ll include Fiers, but I would love to have Phillips and one smaller piece to make it a 4-for-2 trade.” So we went back and forth on about six to nine names, and then we agreed on Adrian Houser and some international bonus money.

 

What that says to me is Hader/Santana and a 3rd lower prospect not named Phillips. He added Fiers to get Phillips and asked for a list to chose his 4th that wound up as Houser.

What would be fun is if the names on that list were told to see who they may have missed on or how great a choice Houser was.

[adambr2]

Ok. But nowhere does this say Phillips/Houser for Fiers in itself was ever an option not would it have been. Nor does it say we would have necesarilly accepted just Santana and Hader if we hadn't come to an agreement on the 4 for 2.

 

Yes, interesting to know who the other names were. But Houser was really just a minor piece at the time (I think he was rated around Houston's 25-30 prospect), so I would guess Houser has worked out as well or better than anyone else on the list.

[clancyphile]

Even if you look at the trade as a whole, I think the Brewers have been clear winners:

 

Hader - Do we really have to say why?

Santana - Solid 2017, slump in 2018, dealt for Ben Gamel (solid bench option) and Noah Zavolas (good SP prospect - 2019 Pitcher of the Year for the Carolina League)

Phillips - Cup of coffee with Crew, dealt for Moustakas (decent 2B/3B for 2018/2019)

Houser - Possible key component in Brewers intial out getters for 2020.

 

Fiers is a solid pitcher - and honestly, the last time he was a FA, I wanted to bring him back.

 

But the return for Fiers/Gomez has been outstanding.