Will Smith is Super... Two Eligible

[And That]

Will Smith qualified for Super Two status this offseason, meaning that he will be eligible for arbitration this winter, as opposed to having his near-minimum contract renewed. He's projected to get about $1.2 million this year by MLBTR.

 

I only bring this up because at risk of sounding like clancy, I think the Brewers have nothing to lose by trying Smith out as a starter next year. His success would probably hinge on being able to find his change-up again, a pitch he hasn't really used since moving to the bullpen in 2013. But the Brewers have virtually no postseason aspirations next year, so you'd think they might as well try to get the most bang for their buck out of Smith. Maybe even build some trade value. So as long as he's getting a 100%+ raise, why not see if he can increase his innings pitched by the same amount?

[MrTPlush]

Sometimes a player just isn't starter material and moves to the bullpen to flourish. That however does not make trying them out as a starter again a good idea.

[jerichoholicninja]

I'd be more inclined to trade him. This team doesn't need a LOOGY right now. Smith is slightly more than just a LOOGY but not enough so that starting him really looks like a good idea. He's not expensive but I think his value to the organization is probably best utilized as a trade piece.

[Roderick]

I always thought he could be a starter after his stint as a young guy in KC, but the rotation has never needed him so he has always been bullpen. Barring a trade of Garza and Jungmann/Davies not panning out, I don't see the rotation needing him again next year - so bullpen it is again.

 

So, yes, he may have trade value to someone that has a spot in the rotation that he can compete for, and that team knows he can always default back to the pen if it doesn't work out. Plus, you figure that would help the Brewers retain their minor league bullpen guys that they may lose through rule 5. But you know they will want a lefty down there, so it doesn't pay to trade for him if you have to go out and acquire a different guy.

[And That]

Sometimes a player just isn't starter material and moves to the bullpen to flourish. That however does not make trying them out as a starter again a good idea.

That was vague - why can't Will Smith start (again), or at least give it a shot? What about his stuff precludes him from doing so?

 

Again, I am fully aware he'd have to find his change-up again, but apart from that, I see no downside to trying.

[clancyphile]

And That:

I think Will Smith is a good reliever, period (not just a LOOGY), and has proven it over the last three years. As for trying him out in the rotation - I'll pass. His numbers as a starter just didn't impress me, and even if you figure Garza is not returning to the rotation, the Brewers have Tyler Thornburg, Jorge Lopez, Tyler Cravy, Zach Davies, Tyler Wagner, Ariel Pena, and Brent Suter who spent time at AAA or higher in 2015 to compete for the other two spots in the 2016 rotation behind Taylor Jungmann, Jimmy Nelson, and Wily Peralta.

 

If you want to maximize Smith's value, deal K-Rod, and use Smith as a closer for a few years. The numbers seem to indicate he has the stuff to handle that role, and I think other teams might overpay for a left-handed closer. That is where my instincts are.

 

The downside to Smith in the rotation is you're not giving one of the seven guys I listed a shot.

[Thurston Fluff]

I don't think any of the other young guys should block Smith from getting a shot in the rotation. They all have options left or can pitch in the pen as well. Having a lefty in the rotation is nice and if he can handle it becomes a much better trade asset.

[And That]

It's not like Smith is some old fart either - of the guys Clancy listed, Smith is younger than Thornburg and Pena, is three days older than Cravy, and about a month and a half older than Suter.

 

The argument that he's a reliever, therefore he should stay a reliever doesn't make any sense. If you're saying all of those guys should get a shot over Smith, why? What is it about Smith's stuff that gives him so small a shot at success?

[trwi7]

I'd be more inclined to trade him. This team doesn't need a LOOGY right now. Smith is slightly more than just a LOOGY but not enough so that starting him really looks like a good idea. He's not expensive but I think his value to the organization is probably best utilized as a trade piece.

 

Same. Teams are always looking for good, cheap relievers. Add him as a piece in a trade to extract more value or trade him by himself. I bet we could get a pretty good piece for him. Same goes for Jeffress and any other reliever we have.

[MrTPlush]

Will Smith was pretty bad as a starter. I don't think finding a change-up is his golden ticket. I think his value to the Brewers is being traded at some point. He should have a lot of value as a reliever and the Brewers should bank on that. We have a ton of back of the rotation type players...why try to make another.

[jerichoholicninja]

Smith's OPS vs RHB:

 

.545 - 2015

.872 - 2014

.684 - 2013

.835 - 2012

 

This past year his platoon splits were so reversed I don't know what you can take from them. Either way he really hasn't been great against RHB in his career. Imagine Will facing a lineup of 6-7 RHB 3 times. It doesn't look like it would end well.

[clancyphile]

It's not like Smith is some old fart either - of the guys Clancy listed, Smith is younger than Thornburg and Pena, is three days older than Cravy, and about a month and a half older than Suter.

 

The argument that he's a reliever, therefore he should stay a reliever doesn't make any sense. If you're saying all of those guys should get a shot over Smith, why? What is it about Smith's stuff that gives him so small a shot at success?

 

It's not about Smith's age. As a starter, he was not very good. A 5.32 ERA, 1.606 WHIP, and a K/BB of 1.79 just aren't very defensible.

 

But over the last three years as a reliever, we're looking at a 3.22 ERA, 1.232 WHIP, and a K/BB of 3.55.

 

So, I think that tells the tale. Now, the 12.2 K/9IP Smith has posted tells me that the best route to maximize his value is to make him the closer by trading K-Rod this off-season. K-Rod should net a top 30 prospect (albeit closer to 30 than 1).

 

Buy out his arby years, and have him close for two or three years, rack up a few dozen saves. Then the Brewers can flip Smith for a higher return than if he is perceived as a LOOGY/middle relief guy.

[MrTPlush]

It's not like Smith is some old fart either - of the guys Clancy listed, Smith is younger than Thornburg and Pena, is three days older than Cravy, and about a month and a half older than Suter.

 

The argument that he's a reliever, therefore he should stay a reliever doesn't make any sense. If you're saying all of those guys should get a shot over Smith, why? What is it about Smith's stuff that gives him so small a shot at success?

 

It's not about Smith's age. As a starter, he was not very good. A 5.32 ERA, 1.606 WHIP, and a K/BB of 1.79 just aren't very defensible.

 

But over the last three years as a reliever, we're looking at a 3.22 ERA, 1.232 WHIP, and a K/BB of 3.55.

 

So, I think that tells the tale. Now, the 12.2 K/9IP Smith has posted tells me that the best route to maximize his value is to make him the closer by trading K-Rod this off-season. K-Rod should net a top 30 prospect (albeit closer to 30 than 1).

 

Buy out his arby years, and have him close for two or three years, rack up a few dozen saves. Then the Brewers can flip Smith for a higher return than if he is perceived as a LOOGY/middle relief guy.

 

I hope you mean Top 30 as in an organizations Top 30...not all of MLB.

[clancyphile]

It's not like Smith is some old fart either - of the guys Clancy listed, Smith is younger than Thornburg and Pena, is three days older than Cravy, and about a month and a half older than Suter.

 

The argument that he's a reliever, therefore he should stay a reliever doesn't make any sense. If you're saying all of those guys should get a shot over Smith, why? What is it about Smith's stuff that gives him so small a shot at success?

 

It's not about Smith's age. As a starter, he was not very good. A 5.32 ERA, 1.606 WHIP, and a K/BB of 1.79 just aren't very defensible.

 

But over the last three years as a reliever, we're looking at a 3.22 ERA, 1.232 WHIP, and a K/BB of 3.55.

 

So, I think that tells the tale. Now, the 12.2 K/9IP Smith has posted tells me that the best route to maximize his value is to make him the closer by trading K-Rod this off-season. K-Rod should net a top 30 prospect (albeit closer to 30 than 1).

 

Buy out his arby years, and have him close for two or three years, rack up a few dozen saves. Then the Brewers can flip Smith for a higher return than if he is perceived as a LOOGY/middle relief guy.

 

I hope you mean Top 30 as in an organizations Top 30...not all of MLB.

 

That was what I meant.

 

Seriously, though... Smith as the closer might be the best thing for the Brewers in the short term (he'd be lights out, IMO) AND for the long haul (I think some teams would overpay for him, especially if there is a couple of years on the contract).

 

K-Rod might net only one top 30 prospect from an organization, but Will Smith after three years as the Brewers closer might bring back a bigger return.

[ZBTMP]

His past sample sizes as a MLB starter are about as relevant as Jake Arrieta and Mike Trout first seasons. He has made advancements/adjustments since that point. Here is a good article explaining that after his first failed attempt as a big league starter, his K rate spiked in the AAA rotation. He was moved to the bullpen to facilitate his role with that Royals club, and hasn't been given a look as starter since.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brewers-land-will-smith-and-his-possible-breakthrough/

 

I guess the biggest detractor of stretching him out as a starter is potential reduction of velocity causing him to lose effectiveness, and the increased injury potential. I guess I could live with that gamble.

I don't think it'll happen though as the Brewers have no opening in their rotation at this point. Davies has little left to prove at AAA and deserves a shot. Matt Garza is unmovable, IMO. No one wants the 2nd worst starter in baseball with a declining K rate, and 26 million with a tricky vesting option still on the table.

Giving him the closer role would have the opposite effect on his value. Saves will drive up his arbitration salary. The number of teams using saves to as a measure of reliever effectiveness is minimal.

Moving him this offseason probably doesn't happen as I would see relievers having more value at the deadline when other avenues (Free agency, promising internal candidates) to fill those roles aren't necessarily there and the need is more pressing. But an elite reliever has value any time..

[And That]

Will Smith was pretty bad as a starter.

He posted a 0.6 WAR in 90 innings as a 22 year old just breaking into the big leagues, and that was three years ago. I fail to see how that is "pretty bad" or "not very defensible" as clancy put it.

 

As for his splits, his career OPS against is .745. For comparison, Peralta's is .739, Nelson's is .716. And 64% of batters Smith has faced in his career have been right-handed, so it's not like he's unused to seeing them.

[clancyphile]

Will Smith was pretty bad as a starter.

He posted a 0.6 WAR in 90 innings as a 22 year old just breaking into the big leagues, and that was three years ago. I fail to see how that is "pretty bad" or "not very defensible" as clancy put it.

 

As for his splits, his career OPS against is .745. For comparison, Peralta's is .739, Nelson's is .716. And 64% of batters Smith has faced in his career have been right-handed, so it's not like he's unused to seeing them.

 

When I see a WHIP of 1.606 in the rotation and only 5.6 K/9IP, that's not a good track record.

 

Smith's blossomed as a reliever, averaging 12.2 K/9IP over the last three years from the pen. Giving him the closer's spot is much more likely to ensure his trade value goes up. Three years from now, when the Brewers try to move Smith, 65-70 saves will make teams pay more.

[And That]

When I see a WHIP of 1.606 in the rotation and only 5.6 K/9IP, that's not a good track record.

 

That's not a track record, that was 90 innings as a 22 year old breaking into the big leagues.

[CheezWizHed]

Meh...

 

His MiLB evidence as a starter isn't sterling either. 3.80 ERA; 7.6k/9IP; 1.28 WHIP;

 

Plus, as a MLB reliever, he has been a first half pitcher. His career June and before ERA is around 2.70 while his July and after ERA is around 4.80. So, I don't think trying to double his innings would be a great idea either.

 

Out of curiosity, how would you manage his transition to SP? Have him start until he hits 140 IP and rest him the rest of the year? Give him a bunch of starts and then RP the rest of the year? Work him at AAA for a time? Straight into the MLB level?

 

I can't think of many RPs that converted back after 3 years of BP life.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'd be more inclined to trade him. This team doesn't need a LOOGY right now. Smith is slightly more than just a LOOGY but not enough so that starting him really looks like a good idea. He's not expensive but I think his value to the organization is probably best utilized as a trade piece.

 

Same. Teams are always looking for good, cheap relievers. Add him as a piece in a trade to extract more value or trade him by himself. I bet we could get a pretty good piece for him. Same goes for Jeffress and any other reliever we have.

 

 

Yeah, they should sign 15-20 guys off an Atlantic League roster to play in Milwaukee next year and just trade any player with 2 or more years of major league experience. Might as well insure you'll have the number one pick in the 2017 draft. No sense having a payroll above $15 million is there?

[Thurston Fluff]

I'd be more inclined to trade him. This team doesn't need a LOOGY right now. Smith is slightly more than just a LOOGY but not enough so that starting him really looks like a good idea. He's not expensive but I think his value to the organization is probably best utilized as a trade piece.

 

Same. Teams are always looking for good, cheap relievers. Add him as a piece in a trade to extract more value or trade him by himself. I bet we could get a pretty good piece for him. Same goes for Jeffress and any other reliever we have.

 

i have two issues with this line of thinking. 1- If they cost a decent player they are no longer cheap. 2- Teams will give up more for a middle of the road starter than a very good reliever. If you want to maximize his trade value you should try him as a starter. Teams already know he is a decent reliever. If he can start as well his value goes way up.

[gregmag]

Here's a pretty good article from BP Milwaukee that argues against Smith's chances as a starter. I don't post this to suggest it trumps or answers all of And That's points, but I think it's a useful addition to the discussion:

 

http://milwaukee.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/08/05/odds-ends-will-smith-walk-rates-2016-free-agency/

 

I'm conflicted (surprise). I very much like the idea of maximizing value, and there's no question that a successful conversion to starting would make Smith's value skyrocket. I also don't see any conclusive reason to believe he can't do it. Also, I love his work in the pen, but I don't care at all about giving that up for a bigger role.

 

On the other hand, (1) I don't see any positive evidence that he can succeed as a starter. (2) I do think there's an opportunity cost to trying him in the rotation. Peralta, Nelson, Jungmann, and (this pains me to type) Garza are locks, right? Davies proved he belongs. Then you're going to have pretty much a whole AAA rotation looking to break through next year, and I like the idea of rescuing those guys from Colorado Springs as soon as they show they're ready. So even if you leave out all the guys Clancy mentioned, which I'm not sure you should, the rotation picture is crowded.

 

There's nothing wrong with having too many starting pitchers, of course. But the whole point of the argument for converting Smith is that we want to maximize the value of our talent. You only have so many opportunities to develop / showcase a pitcher as a MLB starter. Are we really getting the best bang for our buck by converting Smith rather than giving Davies a full shot, or showcasing Garza for a trade (I'd dump him for nothing now, but most rational people seem to want to showcase him), or giving Thornburg a shot, or aggressively promoting whichever of Lopez, Hader, Houser, and Wagner starts banging on the door in May or June? We may not be.

 

The one thing about And That's argument that I don't agree with is prioritizing Smith because he's a super-two. Again, I see how that fact plays into the desire to maximize talent value, but there seem to be a lot of other variables that matter more for planning our rotation than a million bucks between friends.

[logan82]

Are we really getting the best bang for our buck by converting Smith rather than giving Davies a full shot

Yes. Trying to maximize the trade value of a guy and add more overall talent to the organization should be priority number one. Unless we intend to trade Davies.

[MrTPlush]

My biggest issue outside of the total lack of a change-up: His slider is not an effective pitch when behind in the count. That just simply is not going to work if he is starting. It is pretty easy for hitting to lay of that slider when they are ahead in the count. Another problem is his slider isn't a very good first pitch. Over the course of an inning that isn't too big of a deal that he pretty much throws a fastball to start an at bat, but when it comes to 7 innings against the same hitters? How hard to see/predict is that slider after 2-3 at bats?

[jerichoholicninja]

If Toronto could have traded for Will after Loup go hurt, how much would they have given up? I think many are selling short what some teams will give up for very good BP pitcher. I would agree with those that are saying he should close to increase his value. Give him 2016 as the closer to "prove" he can do it and trade him next offseason. Chapman is a free agent next offseason (maybe Kimbrel too, can't remember). Whichever teams miss out on those guys will probably still be looking for a closer.