Lucroy Trades/Proposals

[SRB]

An Arcia-Turner combo up the middle would be a lot of fun, but I don't think Washington would trade Turner. It makes their team worse for 2016, and a top-15 prospect is probably too much of an ask.

 

I would rather target Victor Robles. That's the kind of guy you target when he's 18 before he turns into a top-5 prospect, future MVP-caliber stud.

[narwhalattack]

An Arcia-Turner combo up the middle would be a lot of fun, but I don't think Washington would trade Turner. It makes their team worse for 2016, and a top-15 prospect is probably too much of an ask.

 

I would rather target Victor Robles. That's the kind of guy you target when he's 18 before he turns into a top-5 prospect, future MVP-caliber stud.

 

Robles definitely seems like the kind of guy Stearns would look for.

[nate82]

 

I mentioned something about a blockbuster with Texas using Luc/Davis/Smith. But Texas would have to unload a ton of talent to us. How about Tate/Ortiz/Matuella as a starting point? Three pitchers with tons of upside. I can dream. And then there's Gallo, Brinson and Mazara - lots of upside there.

 

The one thing that really works is that Luc/Smith/Davis only make about $6.5M - meaning any team can really afford them. The cost to get all three - that's a different story - but it would be fascinating to pull off such a trade.

 

I don't think Hamilton would be a huge obstacle. Texas isn't paying him very much - I think something like $5-6M - the Angels are picking up the rest. With the age and injury history of of Prince, Hamilton and Choo, you could find everyone plenty of ABs. And Texas is really left handed reliant - so Davis and Luc are perfect.

 

I would think in that situation the Rangers would probably want the Brewers to take on Hamilton or someone else from their roster. Financially it wouldn't hurt the Brewers in that situation plus the Brewers could put Hamilton at 1B against righties and then sit him against lefties. He would basically become Lind 2.0 for the Brewers and should bring back a good piece or two at the deadline or after the season.

 

I just don't see enough playing time for Davis and Hamilton in Texas and you would really be hurting Davis's value as he needs a lot of PA's to get in a groove for him to be effective offensively. Don't forget the Rangers also need to get playing time for Profar and Gallo is going to be on the Rangers at some point in the season if he is not in this trade.

 

If it were Luc/Smith/Davis to the Rangers I would say one of Gallo, Brinson, Tate and Mazara, plus pick two from this list: Morgan, Forbes, Guzman, Trevino, Parks, Leclerc and one of Profar or Hamilton. I believe the Rangers would prefer Hamilton over Profar as they would be short on depth at IF positions if they trade Profar and with the addition of Davis you start to add to the depth that the Rangers have in the OF so losing Hamilton wouldn't hurt as much as losing Profar would be for them.

 

I wouldn't be mad if the Brewers had to take on someone like Hamilton from the Rangers as it would give the Brewers another asset to flip at the deadline. DH and a 1B/OF could be very valuable going down the stretch and you could possibly get another 75-100 ranked prospect in the system for Hamilton at the deadline. The worst that could happen is that Hamilton stinks and the Brewers need to pay him just a little over $6m for 2017 not a bad deal at all.

[MrTPlush]

I'm sorry but I don't think Josh Hamilton even has positive value while many teams have begged for Profar.

[nate82]

I'm sorry but I don't think Josh Hamilton even has positive value while many teams have begged for Profar.

 

And that is why I said in that trade the Rangers would want the Brewers to take on Hamilton. There just wouldn't be enough playing time and they would need to find 3 40-man roster spots.

 

Hamilton won't have value until at least the all star break and just about any team will take a gamble on Hamilton at just over $6m is not much at all. Plus he is only signed through 2017 at worst a team is looking at Hamilton as a DH for $6m which is well under what you could get in free agency. So Hamilton has some value how much will be determined on how well he plays this year. Taking on Hamilton and gambling on him being good or at least decent is something the Brewers should be doing. Taking the gamble and if it pays off gives the Brewers more prospects and it is not like Hamilton or anyone like Hamilton will be blocking anyone of any importance. At worst you have him blocking Middlebrooks at 1B no big loss there.

[brewerfan82]

I'm sorry but I don't think Josh Hamilton even has positive value while many teams have begged for Profar.

 

And that is why I said in that trade the Rangers would want the Brewers to take on Hamilton..

 

I *think* he was referring to the following part of your post:

 

If it were Luc/Smith/Davis to the Rangers I would say one of Gallo, Brinson, Tate and Mazara, plus pick two from this list: Morgan, Forbes, Guzman, Trevino, Parks, Leclerc and one of Profar or Hamilton.

 

It was just kind of odd to make it sound like we could get either someone who's perceived as having a lot of value OR someone who may very well have negative value. You went on to explain that the Rangers would probably want it to be Hamilton, but throwing Profar as the alternate in there was just a little odd.

 

Anyways, that said, I like the idea and I'm not against taking on another "Hill" contract in a trade to up the value of the returning package. Not sure if the particulars of your trade has the right amount of value coming back for both giving up so much and taking on a bad contract, but I like the idea!

[jerichoholicninja]

I was thinking that Hamilton could be included in a deal to get better prospects back but Texas really isn't paying him all that much. Texas can play him at DH and OF and get some sort of a platoon going. On top of his age he really has no position to play in Milwaukee. Even if Davis is traded it wouldn't make any sense to platoon Hamilton with Braun or Santana on the corners. He's also never played an inning of 1B in the majors or minors and platooning him with Carter wouldn't make sense since Josh would get most of the AB's since he's left handed over the younger guy we want to flip or keep for awhile.

 

The only positions that would really make sense for us to take on a bloated contract would be SS or C, especially if we trade Lucroy.

[Eye Black]

I agree that the Nationals and Rangers present the most practical landing spots for Lucroy, but I have a feeling that he is going to end up in Houston, immediately setting the baseball blogosphere ablaze with conspiracy theories.

[brewcrewdue80]

About Hamilton's contract. The Rangers were given the money to pay him. They'd have to trade him and that money to remain 6mil player no?. He wouldn't be getting 3paychecks just 1 no? From whichever team possessed him?. Can someone clarify how his money situation would work if traded? The headache to deal with 3states or more on taxes?!

[And That]

I assume Hamilton's contract is attached to him, but the money for his compensation is not. Whichever team holds Hamilton's contract is responsible for paying the full amount of his contract*.

 

So if Hamilton is traded to the Brewers, the Brewers assume the entirety of Hamilton's contract. If the Rangers were given money to pay Hamilton by the Angels, the Rangers could pocket the money, but more likely than not the Brewers would request the money given by the Angels to the Rangers to go to them, plus any additional amount the Rangers agree to pay towards Hamilton's contract.

 

In other words, Hamilton should only be getting one check, from whichever team holds his contract. Unless there's language in his contract that indicates otherwise, which is unlikely.

 

*Unless he's released and signed to a new contract by a different club. Then the team who released Hamilton is on the hook for his contract, except for the amount being paid to Hamilton by his new team.

[MrTPlush]

About Hamilton's contract. The Rangers were given the money to pay him. They'd have to trade him and that money to remain 6mil player no?. He wouldn't be getting 3paychecks just 1 no? From whichever team possessed him?. Can someone clarify how his money situation would work if traded? The headache to deal with 3states or more on taxes?!

 

I believe the Angels pay the Rangers a yearly sum that then goes to Hamilton. So he only sees one check.

 

If the Rangers were to trade Hamilton to anyone the Angels would then start paying the new team. I am not even sure the Rangers can "pocket" that money. It wouldn't make sense if they could because then no one would trade for him.

 

You are looking into it too far. All you need to know is Hamilton is a $6mil player and that is all the Brewers would pay.

[And That]

I am not even sure the Rangers can "pocket" that money. It wouldn't make sense if they could because then no one would trade for him.

It depends on the terms of the trade. If the language is that the Angels have to pay the Rangers x amount at a certain point or points in time, then that's that. What the Rangers decide to do with the money is up to them. If the language is that the Angels have to pay the Rangers x amount at a certain point or points, but it can only used to pay for Hamilton's contract, then the Rangers would probably be obligated to forward that money to Hamilton's new team (or have the Angels send it directly, it doesn't matter).

 

I don't understand your second sentence. If the Rangers can do what they wish with the money (which is possible), it's a trade lever. The team trading for Hamilton would probably want the money, but if the money is not contractually connected to Hamilton, the Rangers are not obligated to do anything with it. If Hamilton puts up a .300/.400/.500 line playing full time in the first half for the Rangers, there may well be a team who would trade for Hamilton whether they'd get the money from the Rangers or not, or at least not all of it.

[MrTPlush]

I am not even sure the Rangers can "pocket" that money. It wouldn't make sense if they could because then no one would trade for him.

It depends on the terms of the trade. If the language is that the Angels have to pay the Rangers x amount at a certain point or points in time, then that's that. What the Rangers decide to do with the money is up to them. If the language is that the Angels have to pay the Rangers x amount at a certain point or points, but it can only used to pay for Hamilton's contract, then the Rangers would probably be obligated to forward that money to Hamilton's new team (or have the Angels send it directly, it doesn't matter).

 

I don't understand your second sentence. If the Rangers can do what they wish with the money (which is possible), it's a trade lever. The team trading for Hamilton would probably want the money, but if the money is not contractually connected to Hamilton, the Rangers are not obligated to do anything with it. If Hamilton puts up a .300/.400/.500 line playing full time in the first half for the Rangers, there may well be a team who would trade for Hamilton whether they'd get the money from the Rangers or not, or at least not all of it.

 

It has never happened before(pocketing the money so to speak) and there is probably a good reason for that. Every time a player like Hamilton comes up in trade rumors they are worth the cheaper part. Not $X to $X depending on how much money is sent over.

 

How do we know he isn't getting two checks in the first place? Getting a check from LA is not going to effect any taxes. It will be the same exact amount if Texas were to pay it.

[And That]

It has never happened before

Proof?

[brewcrewdue80]

So far, still not a clear answer. The best though would be the clause that the Angels are on the hook for their paid amount to Hamilton regardless what team he plays for. That the money goes along with him in trade.

 

Plush, taxes do amount a lot in this. Down here in Florida He'd just have Fed taken, no state tax. The opposite I think in regards to Toronto I believe I heard who taxes more. That's why I call it a nightmare if he'd be traded here to Milwaukee and his contract incurred 3 states of payment. Angels, Brewers, and tbd team we traded him too, taking Texas' payroll out of it trade before season.

 

I don't know how often trades like the Hamilton suggestion has happened. Where part of his contract is being paid for in order to make a trade only for him to get traded again. I assume a lot of money contracts are 1year or 2year deals.

 

Btw, looking at Texas BRef It would appear Texas is paying just 2mil this year and 2mil next year. That LAA is paying 26.41mil each of the next two years. At 2mil, there's really no reason to trade him unless you're really crunched at your 25man.

 

Im torn in feelings, because Ortiz I was so high on, only to see him fatten up. Having drafted Tate and Matuella, it would be easier to trade him now. You'd still have that TOR pitching potential in your minors. Now would be the time to snake one of their minor's TOR potential. I would ask for Tate or Ortiz but not Matuella because of the already TJ.

 

They do have Hamels for 2years. There's a pairing with Lucroy in contract length there. And it is Beltre's final year. It'd be interesting to actually see what Texas could do if they could go through a season w/o major injuries to their starters. I feel a little better of a deal in late June/July with them vs this offseason. Because the pieces from them would be clearer on what to acquire. Profar/Odor one needs to be moved. And maybe with Texas injury history, they'll be wanting a pitcher to sweeten the deal for Lucroy that we could provide.

[jerichoholicninja]

You bring up a good point about taxes. Hamilton's contract was reworked for the trade so that he would make the same amount after taxes in Texas as he did in LA but it would cost the team less. That would no doubt be a sticking point for any team that trades for him.

[MrTPlush]

He won't be paying California taxes on the portion LA pays. You pay taxes on where it is made not where it is paid from. From what I have read in the past just being a player that plays in a tax free state doesn't mean all his money is tax free. He has different tax rate for all their away games.

 

I'm not even sure why all this tax stuff even matters. That is Hamilton's problem not any teams problem.

[1992casey]

It's only a team problem if Hamilton is in the position to make it a team problem. In this case, it looks like he was able to renegotiate because of his no trade clause. Because it appears that the no trade clause is still in effect, Josh could conceivably ask for more concessions to approve another deal.

 

Money going from the Angels to the Rangers doesn't automatically get directed to a new team, although the fact that this cash is available would likely make it easier for the Rangers to deal him. The Rangers and a trading partner can set whatever financial terms they want. I'd bet that the Rangers would send along the Angels' money and possibly more, but they wouldn't be obligated to do that. If a trading partner wants prospects, it might be willing to pay a greater portion of Josh's salary than the Rangers currently are.

[Eye Black]

An interesting note on Rangers infield prospect Josh Morgan, who has been brought up in this thread several times as a potential trade piece in a deal for Lucroy, the Rangers are attempting to develop him into a catcher this season. He instantly becomes a more intriguing prospect to me as a catcher, but it may also decrease the likelihood they will want to part with him.

[jerichoholicninja]

He won't be paying California taxes on the portion LA pays. You pay taxes on where it is made not where it is paid from. From what I have read in the past just being a player that plays in a tax free state doesn't mean all his money is tax free. He has different tax rate for all their away games.

 

I'm not even sure why all this tax stuff even matters. That is Hamilton's problem not any teams problem.

 

It's relevant because Hamilton agreed to a reduced contract when he was traded. The only reason the player's union allowed it was because he was going to be taking home the same amount of money as he was in LA but Texas would be paying him less because of the difference in state income tax. I would assume trading him again would bring up the same issue.

[docduany]

I'm wondering if one the mods would be interested in busting out a blast from the past-- the formerly often abused poll!!! I know that I keep coming back several times a day to see if the Luc trade has gone down. And it sure seems like a lot of others are in the same boat. Problem is, we've chewed up a lot of the ground when it comes to talking points. Who & when. I was wondering about the possibility of 2 poll questions. When will Luc get traded (before start of camp, before start of season, at the break, not this season). Other question was which team? (Rangers, Nats, Astro, or other. If there's another team that should be added that I'm to obtuse to see add them). If the polls are a road we don't want to travel down again, that's cool. It just seems like this is a really big deal at this point and it might be an outlet for opinions.

[MrTPlush]

He won't be paying California taxes on the portion LA pays. You pay taxes on where it is made not where it is paid from. From what I have read in the past just being a player that plays in a tax free state doesn't mean all his money is tax free. He has different tax rate for all their away games.

 

I'm not even sure why all this tax stuff even matters. That is Hamilton's problem not any teams problem.

 

It's relevant because Hamilton agreed to a reduced contract when he was traded. The only reason the player's union allowed it was because he was going to be taking home the same amount of money as he was in LA but Texas would be paying him less because of the difference in state income tax. I would assume trading him again would bring up the same issue.

 

Right so you are saying he has a full no trade clause. That is a financial issue, but that still has nothing to do with the Rangers trying to withhold money that they are supposably getting from the Angels. Two totally different financial issues.

[1992casey]

I'm wondering if one the mods would be interested in busting out a blast from the past-- the formerly often abused poll!!! I know that I keep coming back several times a day to see if the Luc trade has gone down. And it sure seems like a lot of others are in the same boat. Problem is, we've chewed up a lot of the ground when it comes to talking points. Who & when. I was wondering about the possibility of 2 poll questions. When will Luc get traded (before start of camp, before start of season, at the break, not this season). Other question was which team? (Rangers, Nats, Astro, or other. If there's another team that should be added that I'm to obtuse to see add them). If the polls are a road we don't want to travel down again, that's cool. It just seems like this is a really big deal at this point and it might be an outlet for opinions.

All set. We're allowed one question per poll, so there are two separate topics. They're located in the "What's Hot?" area at the top of every forum page. Voting will remain open until February 19, the day that pitchers and catchers report. You may change your vote of you'd like.

[Eye Black]

With the Rangers leading the charge in the Lucroy trade destination poll, thought others might be interested in John Sickels just released Texas Rangers Top 20 Prospects list.

 

Biggest difference from other lists is that Sickels is much higher than others on 20 year old RHP Ariel Jurado from Panama, listing him #6 in the Rangers system. By comparison Baseball America had Jurado 19th on their Rangers list. He did have 95 K's with only 12 BB's in Low-A last season.

[StearnsFTW]

Gimme Brinson, Ortiz and Morgan and call it a day.

 

Brinson is a must-have for me.