Matt Wieters sign and flip?

[Mass Haas]

AUDIO via MLB Network Radio Wed. 2/8: Scott Boras goes on air to plead Wieters' case

[brewmann04]

Think DS will take a shot here really with Matt?

[brewerfan82]

I'm borderline on adding Wieters, but probably fine either way depending on his price. We have a couple interesting catcher options in house, but they're not blue chip prospects and I don't think having them share duties for up to a year or delaying their service clocks a bit hurts much. So to me it's more about how good of a deal you can get for him. At what contract are you comfortable thinking you could get a nice prospect back for him if he proves to be productive?

 

Here's what MLBTR had to say about him in their Free Agent Prediction post earlier this offseason:

 

16. Matt Wieters – Braves. Three years, $39MM. Wieters returned from Tommy John surgery in 2015. After a limited season for the Orioles that year, he was compelled to accept the club’s $15.8MM qualifying offer in an attempt to rebuild value. While Wieters re-established his health by starting 111 games at catcher, the switch-hitting former first-round pick had another mediocre year with the bat despite ranking eighth among full-time catchers with 17 home runs. Still, he doesn’t turn 31 until May, and will likely be seeking a four-year contract. The Orioles chose not to stick Wieters with a qualifying offer this time around, but could still have interest in a new deal. If the O’s don’t retain their longtime catcher, the Braves, White Sox, Rockies, Astros, Angels, Twins and Nationals are possible fits.

I would hate to give him a contract like 3/$39m in our position, but has he fallen to taking something like 1/$10m? Is that even too pricey to make it worth it? If he's productive, paying $5m for his second half for a contender probably isn't too bad and, if he stays, eating $10m for one year isn't the end of the world. Like others have mentioned, he possibly provides a little veteran leadership for the staff and young catchers, not to mention he might be some insurance at 1st if Thames flames out. I think somewhere around there is the threshold for me anyways.

[brewmann04]

we got some extra cash to do a one year deal if they want him

[reillymcshane]

If he continues to linger on the market, the club could give offer him a low deal with incentives - say $5M plus playing time incentives.

 

If he does great, the club could look to move him at the deadline (in which case we wouldn't be responsible for a lot of the playing time incentives). If he plays poorly, they could simply release him or limit him playing time.

 

I'm generally not a big fan of adding a guy in the hopes of flipping him later. It's great in theory, but it seems that it rarely works out like people hope.

 

A lot really just depends on the what the team things of Susac and Bandy and so forth. Obviously, if you have Wieters those guys won't get as much playing time (and one will end up in the minors).

 

I honestly don't see Wieters as a long term part of this team - so I'd be skeptical. To me, I'd say we let our young guys have a chance - but then I don't know how good these guys are in the first place.

 

One note - Wieters can't be given a qualifying offer. In the new CBA, a player can't receive a qualifying offer more than once in his career.

[And That]

Nationals are close to signing Wieters.

[reillymcshane]

Nationals are close to signing Wieters.

Done deal.

 

2 years, $21M.

 

$10.5M each year. Wieters can opt out after the first year. $5M of his 2017 salary is deferred until 2021.

 

EDIT: updated the terms of the contract.

[brewcrewdue80]

Nationals are close to signing Wieters.

Done deal.

 

2 years, $21M.

 

$10.5M each year. Wieters can opt out after the first year. $5M of his 2017 salary is deferred until 2021.

 

Nice to have this possibility removed. We have 3 catchers ready to go, and you traded for all of them. If you're not going to play 2 of the 3, why in the world did you trade for them?

[trwi7]

Nationals are close to signing Wieters.

 

Thank God.

[jerichoholicninja]

Pointless move for Washington. If they were going to blow $10M on something this offseason the bullpen would have been a better place.

[RockCoCougars]

Bullet dodged.

[adambr2]

Prediction: One of Bandy, Susac or Pina posts a higher WAR than Wieters in 2017.

[JohnBriggs12]

Stearns admitted to McCalvy that the Brewers were keeping tabs on Wieters and had contacted Boras. I think if his price had come down to 1 year $8 million range or 2 year $15 million, the Brewers make that move. It's never a bad idea to get a player who's a potential flip at a reasonable amount. The fact that Brewers have no established player at the position and a very low payroll, it would have made sense. The guys they have could be okay, but it's not like they are top prospects.

[jerichoholicninja]

Flip a guy no one wanted until after Spring Training started? Ok.

[pacopete4]

Flip a guy no one wanted until after Spring Training started? Ok.

 

 

These comments are silly. If it came down to signing a guy for 1 year/$8mil contract and he came in and smacked the ball around for half of a season and stayed healthy, of course teams would want him. It's not a far-fetched way of trying to use all assets to build a team.

[jerichoholicninja]

Flip a guy no one wanted until after Spring Training started? Ok.

 

 

These comments are silly. If it came down to signing a guy for 1 year/$8mil contract and he came in and smacked the ball around for half of a season and stayed healthy, of course teams would want him. It's not a far-fetched way of trying to use all assets to build a team.

 

I'm as big of a flip guy as there is but like others have pointed out many times, the "flip rate" is actually pretty small. Factor in him being a catcher, which tend to be more difficult to trade midseason, his declining offense, and bad defensive reputation, and I don't see a guy worth attempting to flip. Especially when he would block Susac or Bandy, two guys who should be getting MLB at bats at this point in their career.

[pacopete4]

Flip a guy no one wanted until after Spring Training started? Ok.

 

 

These comments are silly. If it came down to signing a guy for 1 year/$8mil contract and he came in and smacked the ball around for half of a season and stayed healthy, of course teams would want him. It's not a far-fetched way of trying to use all assets to build a team.

 

I'm as big of a flip guy as there is but like others have pointed out many times, the "flip rate" is actually pretty small. Factor in him being a catcher, which tend to be more difficult to trade midseason, his declining offense, and bad defensive reputation, and I don't see a guy worth attempting to flip. Especially when he would block Susac or Bandy, two guys who should be getting MLB at bats at this point in their career.

 

All of what you said I agree with there but it's not as though he couldn't be flipped. Never thought Aaron Hill would be. For peanuts sure but it happened.

[trwi7]

Never thought Aaron Hill would be. For peanuts sure but it happened.

 

That's exactly why it would've been pointless to sign Wieters. You look at the likely outcomes and sure, he could rake for half a season and some team thinks it's real and gives up a haul for him but more likely he's going to be an average or below offensive player who teams didn't want at the price tag and we're stuck with him for the entire season.

[adambr2]

Wieters contract doesn't even make him a very good flip candidate. Absolute best case scenario if he has a huge year, he's going to opt out after 2017, making him just a rental in a sell. A Lucroy-like return wouldn't happen regardless of how good he was, as a lot of Lucroy's value was from the low salary team option this season.

 

Much more likely, he's going to continue to be as good as he has been the last few years, which is very average, and bring back an Aaron Hill type return at the deadline. Looking to flip him for that kind of return isn't worth a $10.5M-$21M investment, especially when it blocks our existing trio of catchers and prevents us from learning anything more about their future in the midst of a rebuild.

[Outlander]

If the Brewers want to spend a little more money for a prospect I would rather they just see what they have in Susac and then just take on a bad contract from another team and get a prospect in return. Then they don't have to worry about if they can flip the player or not.

[TURBO]

flip, flip, flippity flip...

[LouisEly]

Flip a guy no one wanted until after Spring Training started? Ok.

There is a difference between "no one wanted" and "agent asking for more than he is worth". I haven't read every post or clicked on every link or listened to the audio clip, but do you know what Boras was asking for? We are talking about Scott Boras here - he has a tendency to ask for (read: try to trick teams into paying) the moon.

 

Wieters signed for 2/$21M. That's hardly "no one wanted". If he had signed for 1/$5M then I would say that "no one wanted" him, but for all we know Boras could have been asking for 4/$60M up until a couple of weeks ago.

[jerichoholicninja]

Flip a guy no one wanted until after Spring Training started? Ok.

There is a difference between "no one wanted" and "agent asking for more than he is worth". I haven't read every post or clicked on every link or listened to the audio clip, but do you know what Boras was asking for? We are talking about Scott Boras here - he has a tendency to ask for (read: try to trick teams into paying) the moon.

 

Wieters signed for 2/$21M. That's hardly "no one wanted". If he had signed for 1/$5M then I would say that "no one wanted" him, but for all we know Boras could have been asking for 4/$60M up until a couple of weeks ago.

 

Maybe "no one wanted" is a little strong but there was very little chatter about him this offseason. I don't even think he had a draft pick attached to him. Every sports writer pegged him as going to Atlanta for some reason and I don't recall ever reading interest from their end.

[nate82]

Flip a guy no one wanted until after Spring Training started? Ok.

There is a difference between "no one wanted" and "agent asking for more than he is worth". I haven't read every post or clicked on every link or listened to the audio clip, but do you know what Boras was asking for? We are talking about Scott Boras here - he has a tendency to ask for (read: try to trick teams into paying) the moon.

 

Wieters signed for 2/$21M. That's hardly "no one wanted". If he had signed for 1/$5M then I would say that "no one wanted" him, but for all we know Boras could have been asking for 4/$60M up until a couple of weeks ago.

 

Maybe "no one wanted" is a little strong but there was very little chatter about him this offseason. I don't even think he had a draft pick attached to him. Every sports writer pegged him as going to Atlanta for some reason and I don't recall ever reading interest from their end.

 

There was interest by Atlanta but they decided to go else where when the price tag didn't come down.