Chris Archer

[Mr Southpaw]

To me that is a walk away, seeya later price. Would MUCH rather hang onto those guys, trade Santana to Cleveland for Salazar or Clevenger (or Santana + for Salazar and Kipnis) than give up that much. It's basically saying that Archer is so much better than Salazar, he's worth paying Phillips, Burnes and Peralta, on top of what it would take to get Salazar. To me, that is just way too much. I think Burnes alone could be as good as Archer as early as next year.

 

 

Then it seems like Archer is a hard pass. No way DS, BP and CB, just no way.

 

Agreed. But what about, say, Santana, Woodruff, Broxton, Ponce, and one of Hernan or Aguilar?

 

Sold

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Agreed. But what about, say, Santana, Woodruff, Broxton, Ponce, and one of Hernan or Aguilar?

 

Sold

 

LOL, yeah, me too. But it takes two to tango, and that package isn't even getting the Rays on the dance floor.

[Mr Southpaw]

What if we just substitute Jake Odorizzi for Archer on a Santana deal?

 

Two years at an affordable price, he may not be Archer, but he has far less risk and not far behind Archer in talent.

[BuckyBrewer61]

So far Burnes is better than Archer in the minors, what if he turns out to be better than Archer in a few years? He will be cheaper and younger than Archer, and the Brewers control him for more years.

 

A small market team like the Brewers has to keep their TOP pitching prospects and develop them into the big leagues, like what they did with Nelson.

 

Every trade ever made involving MLB talent for prospects goes down this way - if the prospects all live up to their potential, they will be worth more than the MLB talent in the trade. It has to work that way. If the best case scenario is that all the prospects pan out and their collective value only matches that of the MLB player(s), then why bother trading away your established major league talent to take on that risk?

 

Every MLB talent-for-prospects trade is scary because of the potential of the prospects lost. But while there are certainly notable examples of a fleecing, the reality is there aren't a ton of examples out there of teams trading away multiple future stars. Because the vast majority of prospects don't become stars, or even every day MLB players.

[Jkromb]

I think you include Burnes because I don’t think he is a TOR in the next 4 years.. maybe year 5, but at that point the window is likely closed.

[StCroixCtyBrewer]

It honestly seems like those of us here that have weighed on on the potential deal are split right down the middle. Interesting

[homer]

It honestly seems like those of us here that have weighed on on the potential deal are split right down the middle. Interesting

 

Probably means it's a fair deal

[coolhandluke121]

It honestly seems like those of us here that have weighed on on the potential deal are split right down the middle. Interesting

 

Probably means it's a fair deal

 

A more likely explanation is that it's a really bad deal but many fans are being impatient and impulsive. 50% is about the percentage of fans you'd expect to be strongly in favor of a short-sighted trade that appears on the surface to have tremendous immediate benefits. A lot more people should be in favor if it's a smart risk. A lot more than 50% of us were in favor of a Brinson-for-Yelich deal, for example, so it's not like we're just refusing to trade prospects across the board.

[brewcrewdue80]

Archer>Sale is the Rays ask. Santana=Moncada(bat) Kopech at the time=Burnes. Including Phillips/Peralta are far greater than rest of Sale deal. May as well send this offer to Boston for Sale.

 

Poster above listed a comparison of Burnes to Davies, that Burnes will be a 3/4 that could play up to 2 like Davies is a 4 playing up to a 3/2.

 

Okay let's put that comparison for Burnes due to Plus Control but add, Burnes throws 6. 6MPH faster than Davies. This isnt a 4 pushing to 2. Hes a 3 pushing to 1. Chase Anderson did it and hes not the auality Burnes has advanced to.

The thought process also on it being 3-4 years for him to reach that. No. Burnes has Control, when you have that you dont take 3years to produce, look at Davies our comparison. If Burnes isnt a slow starter as davies is thats immediate 3.5ERA and better.(with better velocity so higher ceiling)

 

All it took for Anderson was going from 91-92 to 94 and that velocity made his pitches better enough to post his season last year. Compare Davies and give Davies 6 more MPH to his FB, how well you think he's doing?

 

Now youre taking Santana and That future in Burnes, adding God forbid Hiura, but Phillips? Who's legit on defense and lefty(so right side of a platoon) He's likely better than Spans numbers moving forward.

 

And our throw in Peralta. I mean this is a throw in? Its yet tbd on his SP potential but clearly you're looking at powerhouse Closer RP ceiling or set-up as fall back. 4 legit MLB contributors. This trade idea is more lopsided than Thornburgs deal.

[Fear The Chorizo]

All it took for Anderson was going from 91-92 to 94

 

everyone picked up a few mph on their fastball, because MLB started measuring it differently last season

 

I shouldn't really bother, because the Santana=moncada and kopech=burnes at the time comparisons at the start of your post probably mean it's not worth reasoning too much with your opinions. Moncada as a prospect routinely ranked #1 overall across MLB for an extended portion of his minor league career....that's Bryce Harper/Kris Bryant territory. Santana has 3 years of MLB service time already accrued, meaning that while his bat is a proven MLB commodity it's going to start getting expensive after this year - and he should probably make his career as a DH. That's nowhere near as valuable as what Moncada was at the time he headlined the Sale trade.

 

The reason the list of top Brewer prospects is so long in a potential trade with Tampa for Archer is that at this stage, none of them are sure thing, top 10 overall prospects. They are in the current Brewer organization, NOT across all of MLB. The Brewers' system is deep but relatively light on unicorn prospects (Obvious Cy Young contenders if they stay healthy, perennial AS players for their position). There may be some at their lower levels (Hiura, Lutz, etc), but it's too early in their professional careers to know for sure.

[brewcrew42]

The valuation of Santana on this board is a bit too high. I see why other teams and probably the Brewers don't rate him highly. Yeah he had a great year but I think he's due for regression. I see him as a .255 hitter with 25 HRs and awful defense. No one is going to deal a top prospect like Mejia for him, and he's just a piece in a trade for Archer.

[3and2Fastball]

Moncada=Santana? Not even close.

 

Moncada was one of the top prospects in Baseball at the time of that trade. His ceiling is Robinson Cano with speed. Santana's ceiling is Khris Davis with worse defense

[Jkromb]

Moncada=Santana? Not even close.

 

Moncada was one of the top prospects in Baseball at the time of that trade. His ceiling is Robinson Cano with speed. Santana's ceiling is Khris Davis with worse defense

 

he would make a great DH for TB

[adambr2]

. Santana=Moncada(bat) Kopech at the time=Burnes. Including Phillips/Peralta are far greater than rest of Sale deal. May as well send this offer to Boston for Sale.

 

Santana is nowhere near what Moncada was when the Red Sox dealt him.

 

Kopech is kind of closer to Burnes but only because I'm still processing the Santana/Moncada comparison. Kopech is/was the far better pitching prospect.

 

You can disregard the other two prospects the Red Sox gave up and add in Phillips and Peralta for the Brewers to Santana and Burnes and it still doesn't come close to what Moncada and Kopech were worth when traded.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

. Santana=Moncada(bat) Kopech at the time=Burnes. Including Phillips/Peralta are far greater than rest of Sale deal. May as well send this offer to Boston for Sale.

 

Santana is nowhere near what Moncada was when the Red Sox dealt him.

 

Kopech is kind of closer to Burnes but only because I'm still processing the Santana/Moncada comparison. Kopech is/was the far better pitching prospect.

 

You can disregard the other two prospects the Red Sox gave up and add in Phillips and Peralta for the Brewers to Santana and Burnes and it still doesn't come close to what Moncada and Kopech were worth when traded.

 

Yeah, you aren't just talking about two organizational Top 10 guys in Moncada and Kopech. Both of them are Top 10 in all of baseball. The Brewers haven't had a prospect rated that high since the Fielder/Weeks minor league years.

[mlloyd10]

It is a bad deal, but that is the price you have to play...

 

It’s not more that the Sale deal.....

 

Moncada and Kopech is worth way more than anything the Brewers are offering, but then again, Sale >>Archer

[StearnsFTW]

What if we just substitute Jake Odorizzi for Archer on a Santana deal?

 

Two years at an affordable price, he may not be Archer, but he has far less risk and not far behind Archer in talent.

 

I was thinking this too. Then I looked at Odorizzi's year last year. Yikes. No thanks.

[MVP2110]

. Santana=Moncada(bat) Kopech at the time=Burnes. Including Phillips/Peralta are far greater than rest of Sale deal. May as well send this offer to Boston for Sale.

 

Santana is nowhere near what Moncada was when the Red Sox dealt him.

 

Kopech is kind of closer to Burnes but only because I'm still processing the Santana/Moncada comparison. Kopech is/was the far better pitching prospect.

 

You can disregard the other two prospects the Red Sox gave up and add in Phillips and Peralta for the Brewers to Santana and Burnes and it still doesn't come close to what Moncada and Kopech were worth when traded.

 

Yeah, you aren't just talking about two organizational Top 10 guys in Moncada and Kopech. Both of them are Top 10 in all of baseball. The Brewers haven't had a prospect rated that high since the Fielder/Weeks minor league years.

 

To be fair Arcia was top ten before he graduated

[Boomer5]

Santana, Burnes, Peralta, and Phillips?

 

No way should we do that. Honestly for that deal I'd want both Archer and Jake and maybe we throw in a 15-25 type and one of our bench guys like Augilar or Villar.

 

If WAR and years of control matter, Santana plus Woodruff should be fine for just Archer. We know it won't be of course but that would certainly equal value.

[anglotiger]

It honestly seems like those of us here that have weighed on on the potential deal are split right down the middle. Interesting

 

Probably means it's a fair deal

 

A more likely explanation is that it's a really bad deal but many fans are being impatient and impulsive. 50% is about the percentage of fans you'd expect to be strongly in favor of a short-sighted trade that appears on the surface to have tremendous immediate benefits. A lot more people should be in favor if it's a smart risk. A lot more than 50% of us were in favor of a Brinson-for-Yelich deal, for example, so it's not like we're just refusing to trade prospects across the board.

 

I think that the split comes down mostly to just how good you think Archer is.

 

A lot of people feel that Archer is an ace-in-waiting, are in love with the K's, the contract and the presumed improvement to come from getting out of the AL (all of which are good things) and the feeling that Phillips and Burnes are overrated , while the other half view him as a very good pitcher, whose "improvement" by moving out of the AL East is balanced by pitching most of his games in "hitters' parks", for whom the amount being given up should be reserved for a true ace (which that half don't believe Archer is).

 

The thing is, there's no bridging that gap. One side, in a few years time, will look back at this and say "I told you so" but the truth is that we're not scouts - we're just fans - and our opinions are just that and nothing more. I respect the opinion of those who differ with me on whether or not this is a trade the Brewers should make, even if I disagree with them. As I frequently say - it's probably a very good thing that I'm not in the scouting business...

[Warning Track Power]

I love Brett Phillips as much as anyone. However, if a 4th/5th OF (at least for the foreseeable future with Braun-Cain-Yelich-Santana) is preventing the Brewers from acquiring Archer, with so many other fallback options available as FAs (Gomez, CarGo, etc...), then the FO has ENORMOUS value on Phillips.

[PDXBrewCrew]

I LOVE Chris Archer and think he would be the perfect addition. That being said, no trade should include Hiura or Burnes. If Hiura is able to play even Weeksian defense at second, he's got the possibility of being the second coming of Wade Boggs. Crazy high Avg, not many home runs, lots of doubles. Burnes might not be the real deal, and his trade value might not be higher, but for a franchise that has the difficulties signing and retaining quality pitchers the Brewers do, he's shown far too much to trade away.

 

If that's the cost, I say punt, do the Broxton for Corbin deal and look for another starter at the break or next offseason. I'm more than comfortable with Nelson (when he returns), Anderson, Davies, Corbin, Chacin with 10-15 starts from Suter/Woodruff until Nelson comes back.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

do the Broxton for Corbin deal

 

No where has it been noted that this is even an option, other than speculation on this board and a throwaway "5 trades that should happen" article on a baseball blog. I'd do it if it were offered, but there is no evidence that it's on the table.

[CrewCut]

I would prefer to just dip into FA for Yu, and if we don't get him, one of the remaining three marquee names. Long-term it would not be in our best interest to pay what Archer will cost in prospects. I won't be surprised if Burnes is better than Archer alone, let alone giving Santana/Peralta/Phillips.

[And That]

Archer for Burnes straight up, I think everyone on this board takes it.

I actually don't think that's true. There are a number of people demonstratively opposed to trading Burnes in any deal for Archer, full stop.

 

I followed Corbin Burnes intently this past season, and made it a point to watch him pitch when I could. He's a competitor with good stuff, but IMO he's not so can't-miss that you pass on getting the guy you hope Burnes turns out to be in a few years. There's risk in Archer underperforming, but that same risk is that much greater with Burnes. The odds are, I would say, heavily in favor of Archer outperforming Burnes over the remainder of Archer's contract. Or Burnes' contract for that matter.