Jimmy Nelson

[dacrew101]

jimmy nelson doesn't have shelby miller type value

[adambr2]

I think Jimmy's recent regression validates the concerns people have about how he is going to be valued as a trade asset.

 

He's not an ace and isn't going to be treated as such. At this point in time he is a middle of the rotation starter with perhaps #2 upside. We are probably better off hoping he discovers that upside with us rather than exploring what I think would be a disappointing market for him.

 

Right now I think he's probably a better candidate for an extension than a trade.

[Boomer5]

If you think the Brewers will be competitive in the next 2 to 3 seasons you don't trade a guy like Nelson unless the package is insanely good.

[brewmann04]

I have to agree must keep nelson because they don't really have a true#1 in the system Hope Hader and they are not going to pick up any #1 FA.

[A Swing and A Drive]

I have to agree must keep nelson because they don't really have a true#1 in the system Hope Hader and they are not going to pick up any #1 FA.

 

Nelson may be our best starter, but he is by no means considered a #1 starter by any other organization. He'd be considered a #3 at best.

[brewmann04]

I did not suggest that Jimmy is a Number one guy but the one guy that we could use in this rebuild rotation.

[trwi7]

I think Jimmy's recent regression validates the concerns people have about how he is going to be valued as a trade asset.

 

He's not an ace and isn't going to be treated as such. At this point in time he is a middle of the rotation starter with perhaps #2 upside. We are probably better off hoping he discovers that upside with us rather than exploring what I think would be a disappointing market for him.

 

Right now I think he's probably a better candidate for an extension than a trade.

 

I disagree. Especially this summer where there isn't going to be much available in terms of pitching. There's Rich Hill who will be a FA at season's end. Making a youngish, cost controlled starter available in this market is probably the smart thing to do. Not saying you have to trade him but if there was ever a time a team was going to overpay, this summer is it.

[adambr2]

I think Jimmy's recent regression validates the concerns people have about how he is going to be valued as a trade asset.

 

He's not an ace and isn't going to be treated as such. At this point in time he is a middle of the rotation starter with perhaps #2 upside. We are probably better off hoping he discovers that upside with us rather than exploring what I think would be a disappointing market for him.

 

Right now I think he's probably a better candidate for an extension than a trade.

 

I disagree. Especially this summer where there isn't going to be much available in terms of pitching. There's Rich Hill who will be a FA at season's end. Making a youngish, cost controlled starter available in this market is probably the smart thing to do. Not saying you have to trade him but if there was ever a time a team was going to overpay, this summer is it.

 

I just don't think Nelson is highly regarded enough to bring back the kind of talent that it would take to make it worthwhile, even with the demand for starting pitching.

 

Maybe I'd be surprised at his value, but right now I would peg Jimmy at being worth maybe a low top 100 plus an organizational top 10, and I just don't think that's enough to justify the loss.

 

If we could buy out his arbitration years plus maybe 2 free agency years right now for a reasonable team--friendly price, I'd be all over it.

[trwi7]

I wouldn't give Nelson a contract extension. We already have him through age 32 I think. That's not somebody you buy out a couple of years of free agency from. You keep him and let him hit free agency or ideally, deal him before he hits free agency and get better value than a draft pick.

[reillymcshane]

I wouldn't give Nelson a contract extension. We already have him through age 32 I think. That's not somebody you buy out a couple of years of free agency from. You keep him and let him hit free agency or ideally, deal him before he hits free agency and get better value than a draft pick.

We have Nelson through his age 31 season.

 

I could see an extension - get a year or two extra of control. You can still trade him if you want at some point. But there is the risk of a Peralta-like collapse, and then you're stuck with a fairly large contract.

 

Jimmy just turned 27, so he is likely approaching his peak years. While some people feel Jimmy can be a #2 type, I see him more as a mid-rotation guy. He's slowly, but steadily gotten better, but I'm not counting on him being lots more than what he is. Sure, he might have a year or two where he exceeds that #3 'slot', but then again, he might have a year or two where he has falters. But a solid #3 is a good guy to have. Nothing wrong with that.

 

If the club feels that Nelson is a good gamble to keep producing, locking him up for an extra year or two is fine, in my opinion.

 

I also wouldn't fault them for not doing any such deal, but if it happens, I'm good with it.

[adambr2]

I wouldn't give Nelson a contract extension. We already have him through age 32 I think. That's not somebody you buy out a couple of years of free agency from. You keep him and let him hit free agency or ideally, deal him before he hits free agency and get better value than a draft pick.

We have Nelson through his age 31 season.

 

I could see an extension - get a year or two extra of control. You can still trade him if you want at some point. But there is the risk of a Peralta-like collapse, and then you're stuck with a fairly large contract.

 

Jimmy just turned 27, so he is likely approaching his peak years. While some people feel Jimmy can be a #2 type, I see him more as a mid-rotation guy. He's slowly, but steadily gotten better, but I'm not counting on him being lots more than what he is. Sure, he might have a year or two where he exceeds that #3 'slot', but then again, he might have a year or two where he has falters. But a solid #3 is a good guy to have. Nothing wrong with that.

 

If the club feels that Nelson is a good gamble to keep producing, locking him up for an extra year or two is fine, in my opinion.

 

I also wouldn't fault them for not doing any such deal, but if it happens, I'm good with it.

 

I agree with it being a gamble, but it's also a gamble with big upside. If Nelson suddenly turns into a 3.00-3.25 ERA guy, he could demand quite a bit even in arbitration, and might price out of our range once he hits free agency.

 

Of course, like you said, if he has a Peralta -like collapse, we'll be kicking ourselves. I really don't see Nelson quickly turning into the non-tender candidate that Peralta has, but you never know.

 

So certainly any contract offer to Nelson would need to reflect that level of risk in the form of a team friendly deal. Give us a nice discount that still guarantees you financial security for life, or bet heavy on yourself and hope to break the bank later and not wind up like Wily. Leave it up to Jimmy.

[MrTPlush]

I like Jimmy Nelson and all and think he could be a solid pitcher, but his stats his entire career are very mediocre. At this point I don't think it is worth it to offer an extension. Until he can put together a season worthy enough of an extension no thanks.

[Boomer5]

We just need a contending team in July to realize how much they need a 3rd starter. Ideally they would employ Dave Stewart but controllable pitching goes for a serious premium when desperation sets in.

[adambr2]

I like Jimmy Nelson and all and think he could be a solid pitcher, but his stats his entire career are very mediocre. At this point I don't think it is worth it to offer an extension. Until he can put together a season worthy enough of an extension no thanks.

 

Isn't that kind of the point though? Taking a risk and buying low on a guy if you believe in him and think he's capable of more. Different situation and position, but that's exactly what we did with Gomez.

 

If he puts together a breakout season he obviously becomes much more expensive at that point.

[trwi7]

I'd take a risk if the guy was 24 or 25. He's 27 though, how much better can we realistically expect him to get and how many years of free agency does it make sense to buy out when he'll be 31 when he's a free agent?

[adambr2]

Not much, maybe 1-2. I could see a 5 year extension after this season maybe end up being worthwhile, as long as he doesn't go the way of Peralta. But I have no problem if they want to go year to year either.

[MrTPlush]

I like Jimmy Nelson and all and think he could be a solid pitcher, but his stats his entire career are very mediocre. At this point I don't think it is worth it to offer an extension. Until he can put together a season worthy enough of an extension no thanks.

 

Isn't that kind of the point though? Taking a risk and buying low on a guy if you believe in him and think he's capable of more. Different situation and position, but that's exactly what we did with Gomez.

 

If he puts together a breakout season he obviously becomes much more expensive at that point.

 

He looks like a #3 starter and we control him through his age 32 season. Why exactly do we need to extend him? If we try to lock up FA years we are committing good money to a pitcher well past 30 years old way before that time actually comes.

 

I don't think an extension would provide a ton of upside for the Brewers, but they could do it. I say it probably would not have much upside because the odds Nelson is better than a #3 are slim(IMHO) and I doubt he would sign an extension for pennies. 5/$25mil? He really hasn't done anything to warrant much money. Even that may be too much.

[reillymcshane]

 

He looks like a #3 starter and we control him through his age 32 season. Why exactly do we need to extend him? If we try to lock up FA years we are committing good money to a pitcher well past 30 years old way before that time actually comes.

 

We actually only control Nelson through his age 31 season. If you extend him - say a year - it's still in those prime years before guys often start declining.

 

I'm not really an advocate either way - I think it really comes down to what kind of guy the club thinks Jimmy is going to be. If the club likes him, the extra year or two offers (potentially) some decent performance at a reasonable price.

[brewcrewdue80]

I like Jimmy Nelson and all and think he could be a solid pitcher, but his stats his entire career are very mediocre. At this point I don't think it is worth it to offer an extension. Until he can put together a season worthy enough of an extension no thanks.

 

Isn't that kind of the point though? Taking a risk and buying low on a guy if you believe in him and think he's capable of more. Different situation and position, but that's exactly what we did with Gomez.

 

If he puts together a breakout season he obviously becomes much more expensive at that point.

 

He looks like a #3 starter and we control him through his age 32 season. Why exactly do we need to extend him? If we try to lock up FA years we are committing good money to a pitcher well past 30 years old way before that time actually comes.

 

I don't think an extension would provide a ton of upside for the Brewers, but they could do it. I say it probably would not have much upside because the odds Nelson is better than a #3 are slim(IMHO) and I doubt he would sign an extension for pennies. 5/$25mil? He really hasn't done anything to warrant much money. Even that may be too much.

 

5/25 to me is too little and he'd just leave himself at the mercy of Arbitration. How much can he improve age 27 to age 28? Carlos Carrasco had 380IP roughly at age 27 signed 4/22mil contract with 9+9.5million options which will be his FA years. Essentially skipping his Arb years(Super 2) Now he'd been hurt and had his clock wound back to make him a Super 2. His 1st year of that contract was his 1st real Full Season's worth of starts with 183IP.

 

You could put the two in a stats similar/age similar category and I suppose give him the same kind of contract offer after this year. 4/22+2/18.5 option years.

Nelson had this kind of patch in May/June last year before a solid 9 of 10 start stretch where his ERA dropped from 4.5 to 3.7. He was at 4.64ERA his highest on last season after start 14, so hopefully he turns it around like he did last season at 14starts 3.92. Should he and then not have a poor September finish his ERA will be a solid 3.3s-3.5s. and he's still on pace for 200IP. Brett Anderson who hadn't pitched over 112innings since his 2nd season signed for 10million still by Dodgers last year, his 1st FA qualified year. Pitched 180innings and agreed to the 15.8mil QO the Dodgers offered him. Stats that would be similar to Nelson's last season. So there's your market on pitchers who can provide 30+games started. 180innings+ Nelson is above that to this point.

 

Teams will take him in an instant if they need a #3-5 SP. And should he just produce to a 3.85ERA but giving 180+innings in a season, he'll be valued over 10million.

[jerichoholicninja]

With his age and not front of the rotation stuff it doesn't really make sense to extend him. He's in pretty much the same situation as Fiers was.

[splitterpfj]

There's no doubt, right now, starting pitching is the toughest, "get", in town.

 

After seeing Drew Pomeranz return a top-20 prospect, a supposed, *ahem*, "untouchable" - I'll be very disappointed if the Brewers don't make every one of their starting pitchers available right now.

 

I didn't say I want them gone, and I didn't say there's a reason to simply trade them, I am saying, there is no supply to meet the demand right now. This is when someone may give you more than they typically would, hence, more talent in the return than the player himself represents.

 

The idea is to build the best team, and you do that by building the best organization, and you do that by adding as much talent as you can.

 

This looks like an opportunity.

[billymac]

There's no doubt, right now, starting pitching is the toughest, "get", in town.

 

After seeing Drew Pomeranz return a top-20 prospect, a supposed, *ahem*, "untouchable" - I'll be very disappointed if the Brewers don't make every one of their starting pitchers available right now.

 

I didn't say I want them gone, and I didn't say there's a reason to simply trade them, I am saying, there is no supply to meet the demand right now. This is when someone may give you more than they typically would, hence, more talent in the return than the player himself represents.

 

The idea is to build the best team, and you do that by building the best organization, and you do that by adding as much talent as you can.

 

This looks like an opportunity.

 

Absolutely! Great opportunity if teams are interested in Jimmy or Guerra.

[mattyo]

There's no doubt, right now, starting pitching is the toughest, "get", in town.

 

After seeing Drew Pomeranz return a top-20 prospect, a supposed, *ahem*, "untouchable" - I'll be very disappointed if the Brewers don't make every one of their starting pitchers available right now.

 

I didn't say I want them gone, and I didn't say there's a reason to simply trade them, I am saying, there is no supply to meet the demand right now. This is when someone may give you more than they typically would, hence, more talent in the return than the player himself represents.

 

The idea is to build the best team, and you do that by building the best organization, and you do that by adding as much talent as you can.

 

This looks like an opportunity.

 

Agreed. As far as that goes, no one on the entire roster should be off limits right now.

[splitterpfj]

Absolutely! Great opportunity if teams are interested in Jimmy or Guerra.

 

Don't stop there, check the return on literally everyone, including the bullpen.

 

No matter who the player is, let's say its Zach Davies, suppose the Brewers are offered a prospect they regard as highly as they regarded Davies a year ago, and for instance, a guy they believe could become Tyler Thornburg, or Jonathan Villar.

 

You can change the names around all you want, my point is, if you can get two guys you believe in, for one guy you believe in, there's no reason to simply say no, just because you've got the first guy in hand.

 

There will come a time, when the big club is competitive again, when the approach will need to change, but right now, every player should be up for bidding, and you take the deals that truly make you better.

[Madhawk23]

With the rumor that we had discussed a Nelson/Espinoza swap with Boston, do you think the Dodgers would have any interest in a Nelson/De Leon swap? They appear to still need SP help, and Nelson would probably be very reliable for them in a #3 type role in their rotation. Or, would the Dodgers probably balk at this offer since De Leon is close to being MLB ready (unlike Espinoza in the Boston proposal).