"The Guy", or, "The Package"

[dacrew101]

There's no minor leaguer that I would trade Lucroy or Braun for. At a minimum I would want 3 players for each. For Braun I'd want more like 5 players for him

 

Braun doesn't have that type of value, unless those 5 players aren't very good players

[DHonks]

There's no minor leaguer that I would trade Lucroy or Braun for. At a minimum I would want 3 players for each. For Braun I'd want more like 5 players for him

 

Braun doesn't have that type of value, unless those 5 players aren't very good players

 

And why doesn't he? He's an all-star, outperforming his affordable contract, comes with years of future team co tell, and a great presence in the community. Carlos Gomez was a far lesser player with an uncertain contract and limited history of achievement, and he netted us 4 very good prospects.

[dacrew101]

There's no minor leaguer that I would trade Lucroy or Braun for. At a minimum I would want 3 players for each. For Braun I'd want more like 5 players for him

 

Braun doesn't have that type of value, unless those 5 players aren't very good players

 

And why doesn't he? He's an all-star, outperforming his affordable contract, comes with years of future team co tell, and a great presence in the community. Carlos Gomez was a far lesser player with an uncertain contract and limited history of achievement, and he netted us 4 very good prospects.

 

 

That contract is not going to be easy to move along with his injury history and the way he dealt with the PED situation and giving up these 5 prospects you want.. Just not gonna happen

[JohnBriggs12]

Quality is always better than quantity.

 

Agreed. Difference makers aren't usually included in packages.

[Bombers]

Quality is always better than quantity.

 

Agreed. Difference makers aren't usually included in packages.

I tend to agree with this too. I think if you are trading Lucroy and have a shot at one of the top pitching prospects in baseball, I would be fine with "the guy". But when trading Jeffress or Smith, you are not going to get a top prospect, even 1 for 1. So I would probably prefer more of a package. However, I do think the package we got for Gomez and Fiers was awesome (Josh Hader, Brett Phillips, Adrian Houser and Domingo Santana.)

[A Swing and A Drive]

I agree with quality over quantity.

 

However, there is zero chance Lucroy would land either Yoan Moncada or Lucas Giolito.

 

Doesn't look like Joey Gallo is even a possibility.

 

With that said, I think we need to get one prospect in the 25-50 range and 2-3 players in the lower levels of the minors with high ceilings (example: Leodys Tavares, Rangers or Juan Hillman, Indians)

 

Players that could either flame out completely or be a top 50 prospect in two years. This way you are spreading out your risk but increasing your chances of one of them panning out. The Sabathia/LaPorta trade is a great example. LaPorta was a top 50 prospect at the time but he was a bust. The Indians also got LHP Zach Jackson, RHP Rob Bryson and OF Michael Brantley as the backend of the deal. Two busts and one borderline MLB star.

[NievesNoNO]

If you can get the "guy" then I'd say you do that. There's only a handful of those types though, if you have that chance you do it.

[CheezWizHed]

I'd say you need a balance. A headliner with some backups. No way is it one MiLB guy.

 

CC trade is a good reason why. There are no can't miss minor leaguers. If you need to add someone (Fiers) on our side to make it happen, you still have a safer trade.

[JohnBriggs12]

Quality is always better than quantity.

 

Agreed. Difference makers aren't usually included in packages.

I tend to agree with this too. I think if you are trading Lucroy and have a shot at one of the top pitching prospects in baseball, I would be fine with "the guy". But when trading Jeffress or Smith, you are not going to get a top prospect, even 1 for 1. So I would probably prefer more of a package. However, I do think the package we got for Gomez and Fiers was awesome (Josh Hader, Brett Phillips, Adrian Houser and Domingo Santana.)

 

I'm not so sure of the awesomeness of the Houston package. Phillips and Houser haven't performed up to expectations at AA and prospects become suspects quickly when they don't dominate at AA. Santana has yet to prove he's an everyday corner OF though he has injury excuse to fall back on. Don't know what to make of Hader at this point. The Colorado Springs effect seems to nailed him too. It could still turn into a great deal, but until one or two of those guys is performing well at the major league level, it's still up in the air and that seems less likely than in did when the season started.

[Point Beer Is Best]

It really completely depends on a) the current situation of the franchise and b) the player being offered by the "selling" team.

 

As others have touched on, we have good depth in the minors but lack the star power we had when we eagerly anticipated the arrivals of Weeks, Hart, Fielder, Hardy & Braun. Had Stearns arrived a couple of years ago when we were perceived to have one of the worst farm systems, then I think the strategy of acquiring "packages" of talent in the lower minors (guys with good draft pedigree and those "lottery ticket" type players). But with the general consensus being that we have a good system overall, and feel like our player acquisition team (Montgomery, et al) are more competent than their predecessors, the trade market acquisitions should now focus on players of higher quality rather than quality. Let's go get more bang for our buck.

 

And of course it then depends on who we're offering. Some were upset by the Lind trade, but perhaps it was Stearn's view that if he focused on a one-for-one deal to get a single player with the most current value it just wasn't overwhelming. Weighing that option against the comp pick (which was also risky given Lind's back injuries and the very real possibility he would accept the QO), I can totally understand why he went the route of grabbing three teenage international prospects. Using "The Guy" approach with Lind likely would have only yielded a borderline prospect, so why not take a gamble on a quantity of lower level guys that fit your profile? But when you are selling a Lucroy/Braun or one of our high leverage relievers, I think you have to go for "The Guy" because "The Guy" is more likely to have significant value. I'd rather trade those types of players for prospects that have say a 90% chance of being an MLB starter and a 70% chance of being an all-star at least once in their career and maybe a 50% chance of being a perennial star as opposed to getting three players who have high upside but their chances of becoming a star are just indeterminable at this point. Kind of the "better to have a bird in the hand than 2 in the bush" type thinking when it comes our more valuable players.

[Devinep]

If the question of "guy" or "package" is perusing specifically to train Braun or Lucroy, then you must get at least one top tier prospect. I'm not saying it's always great to out your eggs in one basket, but trading star players is the only time it's even an option. You may end up trading for Mattt Laporta, but you also may be getting Nosh Syndergaard. Plus, the Brewes have enough guys projected for the back of the rotation/bullpen or future light hitting utility infielders.

 

I'd take a dice roll (1 in 12) over a coule of lottery tickets (1 in a million). Plus when guys like Carter and Genmet are traded, that's when you get OK prospects because that's all you can get

[Bnowell4evr]

"The Guy" and "The Package" aren't mutually exclusive to me. In a trade with the Indians the player that I would covet the most is Triston McKenzie because pitchers like him are never available the further he gets up the ladder. However, because he's so far away it allows the Brewers to get a better overall package.