Aaron Hill + prospect(s)

[reillymcshane]

Let's be up front - I don't want Aaron Hill. He's aging, and not very good. But AZ is supposedly trying to deal Hill to free up some money. What if we took him - making this like the trade last year where Atlanta took on Arroyo and his $10M salary, plus Toussaint, who was in the upper areas of the Top 100 on most prospect lists. Atlanta bought Toussaint for $10M. Why not do the same thing?

 

Take on Hill plus a top prospect or young player - Shipley or Bradley or Lamb or whomever would work. We take on Hill's salary - which is $12M. In return, we get some quality assets to add to our system.

 

You can ultimately include other players in the deal - example: AZ would probably like Will Smith a lot. That, of course, would increase our return.

 

It's basically buying a top prospect for $12M. We have the salary space to burn this year. The team could just release Hill, or they could hang on to him, see how he does, and try and flip him mid-season. I certainly wouldn't want him blocking anyone, but if he plays okay, he might fetch something down the line.

 

Again, not advocating for acquiring Hill. I'm saying use our salary space to buy a good prospect or two.

[Outlander]

It is not my money, if Mark A wants to acquire prospects in exchange for garbage contracts I am all for it.

[MrTPlush]

It is not my money, if Mark A wants to acquire prospects in exchange for garbage contracts I am all for it.

 

Pretty much anyone's thoughts.

 

Though I doubt Attanasio feels like doing such a thing and even if he did want to it is questionable if it is actually worth it. $12mil for a prospect in the lower top 100 is a lot of money.

[Jenkins5]

I have mentioned a Garza for Hill + prospect deal multiple times. Play him at 2b, 3b, 1b & mostly as pinch hitter. Issue is he interfers with Walsh & Villars playing time. The plus is Lopez or Hader are in rotation

[Jenkins5]

Garza's dead weight for Hills Dead weight

[bill hAll Star]

I have mentioned a Garza for Hill + prospect deal multiple times. Play him at 2b, 3b, 1b & mostly as pinch hitter. Issue is he interfers with Walsh & Villars playing time. The plus is Lopez or Hader are in rotation

 

Unless Arizona really liked Garza's rebound chances, why would Arizona throw in a prospect to get Garza?

 

Garza is due $12.5 million for 2, possibly 3 more years with his vesting option. Hill just has 1 $12 million year left.

 

I'll sit back and wait for the jokes about Arizona's recent trades/moves as to why this could happen.

 

To the original poster, I don't think they'd give up a prospect to dump Hill without Garza involved (yes, I know they did this with Arroyo) but I do like the general idea of absorbing players to bring in prospects...so I agree. Look for trades like this.

[monty57]

Issue is he interfers with Walsh & Villars playing time.

 

The Brewers could always trade him while eating his salary, which would give him value on the trade block. In that case, the Brewers pay $12M for the good Arizona prospect plus whatever they can get in trade for Hill.

[JohnBriggs12]

Arizona's paying Greinke how much? I seriously doubt they figured they'd recoup money by dealing Hill who had negative trade value at this point.

[Jenkins5]

I think even with how awful Garza was last year, he still has more value to the Diamondbacks at same price tag as Hill. Hill is virtually dead weight for that team. Garza at least has a track record. I wouldn't expect Top prospect in return. Isan Diaz would be the absolute highest value I see that we could get back. Overall make trade and find a gem in DSL or rookie leagues.

[Jenkins5]

Matt Garza for Aaron Hill + Low level prospect

 

In search of players I take a DS type approach for what I am looking for. In pitchers, I am usually looking for a ratio of 9/2 k/9 to bb/9...close to a 20% K% to BB%, solid FIP in 2's to lower 3's. Batting averages against to be under .250 (prefer .230 or less depends on other measurable) 1.20 Whip or lower, and lastly young for their level. Hitters I am looking for a BB% of at least 10% usually, depends on how outstanding other measures are. Strikeout percent is prefered to be under 20%. I like them to be as close as possible (ks 14% bb 12%), I look at ISO and Speed, I prefer a iso of at least 7-8% and speed at 4. wOBA & wRC+ both factor in as well.

DSL

Plenty of intriguing prospects (All ages is what they will be in 2016 season

19 year old 6'2 170 SS Yan Sanchez

18 Year old 6'0 180 OF Oscar Moreno

19 year old 6'0 175 SP Slivestre Berroa

20 year old 6'2 175 SP Franklyn Soreno

 

Top DSL get IMO

17/18 year old OF 6'2 200 Juan Araujo

 

In Arizona

19 yr old 6'3 175 SP Luis Madero

19 yr old 5'10 185 C Jose Herrera

 

Top

19 yr old Emilio Vargas a 6'3 200 SP

 

Missoula

Matt Raily 21 yr old OF 5'11 190 (former 3rd round pick)

Marcus Wilson 19 yr old 6'3 195 OF (former 2nd round pick)

Francis Christy 20 year old 6'2 200 C

Gabiel Moya 21 yr old 6'0 175 SP

 

Top Get

Isan Diaz 20 year old 2B/SS 5'10 185 (former 2nd rd pick)

[reillymcshane]

Arizona's paying Greinke how much? I seriously doubt they figured they'd recoup money by dealing Hill who had negative trade value at this point.

The point is that Milwaukee should be looking at every situation and seeing how they take advantage. Arizona doesn't need Hill, he makes a lot of money, and they'd love to clear his salary so they can add another player.

 

We can take on Hill's salary in exchange for them giving us something else of value - namely a quality prospect or two. For Arizona, this might be the only way they can clear salary - by attaching other assets to Hill.

 

We need creative thinking - seeing opportunities where others might not. That's the point of this kind of a trade - which happened just last year with AZ and ATL.

[JohnBriggs12]

I think even with how awful Garza was last year, he still has more value to the Diamondbacks at same price tag as Hill. Hill is virtually dead weight for that team. Garza at least has a track record. I wouldn't expect Top prospect in return. Isan Diaz would be the absolute highest value I see that we could get back. Overall make trade and find a gem in DSL or rookie leagues.

 

Garza was arguably the worst starting pitcher in the NL last year who made at least 20 starts. Ok, it was a virtual tie between him and Lohse, but nobody else was close. Hill isn't the player he once was but he's not going to kill a team as bench bat with some versatility. Garza along with Lohse are the reasons the Brewers decided to blow up their roster. Now some may see that as a good thing in the long run, but he's a bounce back candidate only in the sense he can't be worse. No contender would touch him.

[reillymcshane]

The problem with Garza for Hill is that Garza has two years on his deal. Arizona doesn't want to take on more dead weight, even if they think Garza might help them a bit this year (which is a big question mark).

[monty57]

The problem with adding Garza is that all it would do is limit/negate any return we'd get. The only reason for even addressing doing this trade is that we would be eating a lot of money in taking on Hill, so we would get a prospect in return for taking on that salary. If Garza is added, then you are just doing a "bad contract for bad contract" deal, in which case we would probably have to send a prospect to Arizona, as Garza is two years of bad contract.

[bill hAll Star]

Garza may have a tiny bit more expected value, but I doubt that the D-Backs are willing to take on possibly $38 million dollars over 3 years to find out when only shedding Hill's $12. They will not throw in an extra prospect, and I think the idea is that Arizona just wants to shed $ as monty has said.

[Roderick]

The problem with adding Garza is that all it would do is limit/negate any return we'd get. The only reason for even addressing doing this trade is that we would be eating a lot of money in taking on Hill, so we would get a prospect in return for taking on that salary. If Garza is added, then you are just doing a "bad contract for bad contract" deal, in which case we would probably have to send a prospect to Arizona, as Garza is two years of bad contract.

 

Yeah, stick to the original idea. Take salary off another team's hands in exchange for a prospect. And we already know the Diamondbacks are a team willing to do that. Adding Garza into the equation will just negate getting a prospect, if not the deal.

[reillymcshane]

Arizona is reportedly interested in Howie Kendrick, but they can't pay him without clearing salary. Thus the original idea. Here's the note from ESPN's baseball roundup:

 

"The D-backs are "active in trade talks" to move one of their second basemen, Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports. Such a move could presumably clear a roster spot for free agent Howie Kendrick, whom Arizona is said to covet. On their 40-man roster, the Diamondbacks have Chris Owings, Aaron Hill and Brandon Drury as potential options to play the position. If the team is pushing to deal any of those players, Hill is likely the preferred option, seeing as he doesn't carry the upside that younger players like Owings and Drury have. Although the D-backs like Kendrick, they remain reluctant to give up a draft pick in order to sign him, sources tell Rosenthal. Also, the team likes what it has in Owings, which means the trade talks could be just to clear roster space for additional depth elsewhere."

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/mlb/rumors/post/_/id/23146/mlb-rumors-roundup-nationals-serious-about-cespedes

 

It may all just be nothing, but I see AZ in a 'win now' mode, and thus it's the time to make such inquiries. They need to shed money, we can take on salary. They just have to make it worth our while to facilitate such a deal.

[Jenkins5]

The problem with adding Garza is that all it would do is limit/negate any return we'd get. The only reason for even addressing doing this trade is that we would be eating a lot of money in taking on Hill, so we would get a prospect in return for taking on that salary. If Garza is added, then you are just doing a "bad contract for bad contract" deal, in which case we would probably have to send a prospect to Arizona, as Garza is two years of bad contract.

 

Yeah, stick to the original idea. Take salary off another team's hands in exchange for a prospect. And we already know the Diamondbacks are a team willing to do that. Adding Garza into the equation will just negate getting a prospect, if not the deal.

 

What prospect do we give up though to take on Hill's contact. What kind of prospect are we looking at giving up. They got a decent young bench bat out of that last deal with the Braves. I just don't know what I am willing to give up.

[bill hAll Star]

The problem with adding Garza is that all it would do is limit/negate any return we'd get. The only reason for even addressing doing this trade is that we would be eating a lot of money in taking on Hill, so we would get a prospect in return for taking on that salary. If Garza is added, then you are just doing a "bad contract for bad contract" deal, in which case we would probably have to send a prospect to Arizona, as Garza is two years of bad contract.

 

Yeah, stick to the original idea. Take salary off another team's hands in exchange for a prospect. And we already know the Diamondbacks are a team willing to do that. Adding Garza into the equation will just negate getting a prospect, if not the deal.

 

What prospect do we give up though to take on Hill's contact. What kind of prospect are we looking at giving up. They got a decent young bench bat out of that last deal with the Braves. I just don't know what I am willing to give up.

 

The poster meant Hill + prospect to the Brewers and a bag of baseballs going back to Arizona.

 

Adding Garza doesn't make sense. Now you've probably got Garza + prospect for Hill (Arizona still is likely not motivated to do this given their current state). I'm definitely not giving up a contract to rid myself of Garza's contract. Payroll will be plenty low the next 2-3 years. The only way I could see doing it is if by some miracle we're a WS contender in 2018 and Garza's option vests and he blows out his arm early in the season or something like that and we really need the space.

 

Anyways, there is no reason to give up anything to get rid of Garza.

[Jenkins5]

Even the Braves had to give up someone. There is no reason Arizona wouldn't want at least a future utility type guy or RP prospect to come back.

[bill hAll Star]

Even the Braves had to give up someone. There is no reason Arizona wouldn't want at least a future utility type guy or RP prospect to come back.

 

If the prospect we got back was significantly better, I'd make the deal. I'd take a top-rated prospect + Hill for a Sardinas or Yadiel Rivera type.

[brewcrewdue80]

With Garza's removal from Starting Rotation to end last season, you have to look at him at a 3/30mil contract. He won't vest at 13mil due to lack of Games started. And a team would be foolish not to try him for a 1/5 contract to perform that year and trade him for some kind of quality.

Taking on Hill. I could see that. You're not going to get AZ's top prospects.

You make a gamble and take Peter O'Brien with his power bat as a 1b in the years ahead?

Isan Diaz is a good looking 2b who's LH.

Lastly, do you reacquire Anthony Banda? Solid numbers last season. That'd be a makes sense kind of trade. Send Hill+contract and return Banda to Milw.

 

I think if you want Shipley you're tossing in Smith ideally. Get Shipley as well as Banda.

Let's add something. DBacks CBB pick #39 currently. And of course, you'd probably be able to ask for International slot. Arizona is one of the teams that cannot spend more than 300k on any single 2016 International signee.

[logan82]

The problem with adding Garza is that all it would do is limit/negate any return we'd get. The only reason for even addressing doing this trade is that we would be eating a lot of money in taking on Hill, so we would get a prospect in return for taking on that salary. If Garza is added, then you are just doing a "bad contract for bad contract" deal, in which case we would probably have to send a prospect to Arizona, as Garza is two years of bad contract.

 

Yeah, stick to the original idea. Take salary off another team's hands in exchange for a prospect. And we already know the Diamondbacks are a team willing to do that. Adding Garza into the equation will just negate getting a prospect, if not the deal.

 

What prospect do we give up though to take on Hill's contact. What kind of prospect are we looking at giving up. They got a decent young bench bat out of that last deal with the Braves. I just don't know what I am willing to give up.

How about Segura? We have plenty of middle infield guys and Arcia in the wings.

 

With Garza's removal from Starting Rotation to end last season, you have to look at him at a 3/30mil contract. He won't vest at 13mil due to lack of Games started.

He only needs 58 starts over the next 2 years. He may still vest.

 

4 years/$50M (2014-17), plus 2018 vesting option

 

signed by Milwaukee as a free agent 1/27/14

 

14-17:$12.5M annually. 18: vesting/club option

2018 option vests at $13M if Garza 1) has 110 starts in 2014-17, 2) has 115 innings in 2017 and 3) is not on the disabled list at end of 2017 season

club holds $5M option for 2018 if it does not vest at $13M

club may exercise 2018 option at $1M if Garza spends more than 130 days on disabled list in any 183-day period from 2014 to 2017

$2M annually is deferred without interest, to be paid in four installments each Dec. 15, 2018-21

annual performance bonuses: $0.5M each for 30 starts, 190 IP

[brewcrewdue80]

58starts in 2 years is 29 starts per year. Something he hasn't reached since the 2011 season. at 31 starts that season. then you're looking at 27more the other season. It's been 2010-2011 since he would have met that mark over a 2year period.

 

Yes it is possible. Plausible, no.

[Eye Black]

Well I guess this one is getting locked down now, but wanted to point out we are entering an exciting new era in the "Transaction Rumors / Proposals" forum where just about any random thread or idea has a chance to actualize.