J.T. Realmuto

[tmwiese55]

Well it seems the Marlins are open and possibly wanting MLB ready players. We discussed this in this thread on whether they'd value guys like Anderson, Davies, Thames, Santana, etc or if they'd prefer to just be massively awful. It seems they would, so it could reduce the actual prospects we give up. To me, Anderson and/or Davies would make a lot sense for them

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

Jon Morosi of MLB Network reports that the Padres have "genuine interest" in acquiring J.T. Realmuto from the Marlins.

 

The Padres are in the market for an upgrade behind the plate and Realmuto definitely qualifies there. He'd add another big bat to the middle of the lineup as well as terrific defense behind the dish. The Mets are the team that has been mentioned most often as the team looking to snag the All-Star catcher from the Marlins, but perhaps they'd prefer to deal him out of the division instead, which could give the Padres a leg up.

 

Source: Jon Morosi on TwitterDec 9 - 10:24 PM

 

The Padres' interest in Realmuto tells me everything I need to know about Francisco Mejia - that he is quite possibly one of the most overhyped prospects in recent memory. If you have arguably the #1 catching prospect in the majors, who is supposedly ML ready, in my mind you don't trade for another front-line catcher. I imagine that if the Padres traded for Realmuto, Mejia would be one of the pieces going back.

[KeithStone53151]

It's possible they could be considering moving Mejia off catcher. He was always a bat first guy, maybe his defense simply isn't good enough in their eyes. Might be looking at 3b or corner OF if that's the case...probably 3b.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

It's possible they could be considering moving Mejia off catcher. He was always a bat first guy, maybe his defense simply isn't good enough in their eyes. Might be looking at 3b or corner OF if that's the case...probably 3b.

 

His bat makes him an elite catching prospect. But his lack of power very much diminishes his value as a 3B or corner OF. I always thought that, judging by scouting reports, he was solid at catcher defensively. It appears that the Indians sold him at the right time.

[sveumrules]

Conforto and Nimmo are highly valuable pieces. I understand both why the Marlins covet them and why the Mets would say no

 

I don't know. They are cheap I guess. Otherwise I don't see how they are so valuable. Nimmo is a ok defense high strikeout bat, while Conforto had a poor year. They are young, but I don't see how either would be off the table for a guy who is arguably the best catcher in the game. Both seem pretty average to me.

 

Nimmo still managed to put up 4.5 WAR with ok defense & a high strikeout rate because he also had the 4th highest OBP in the league (.404) & 6th highest wRC+ (149).

 

Conforto posted a 120 wRC+ & 3 WAR last year, hard to characterize that as poor unless maybe you're comparing it to to the 147 wRC+ & 4.4 WAR he put together in fewer games the season before.

 

If I were the Marlins I'd prefer prospects with more team control, but the Mets don't really have anyone that fits the bill & would compare to other potential Realmuto headliners.

 

Since their isn't a prospect match I think the Mets end up getting their catcher through FA.

[KeithStone53151]

It's possible they could be considering moving Mejia off catcher. He was always a bat first guy, maybe his defense simply isn't good enough in their eyes. Might be looking at 3b or corner OF if that's the case...probably 3b.

 

His bat makes him an elite catching prospect. But his lack of power very much diminishes his value as a 3B or corner OF. I always thought that, judging by scouting reports, he was solid at catcher defensively. It appears that the Indians sold him at the right time.

 

It does I agree. There's still value at 3b if he can hit for a very high average...but yes I tend to agree it's a bit surprising that the Padres are looking at a catcher. They could also be packaging Mejia for a trade for Thor. Hard to know how many pieces are moving behind the scenes.

[tmwiese55]

Not sure of a better spot to put this article. Seems relevant here a bit. I guess it somewhat supports my general more willingness than most to give up prospects. To me, I'm not a hoarder unless their starting pitching and at the MLB ready point like Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta types. Any prospects multiple years/levels away can have so many things go wrong for them before even getting to that point.

 

I think I even had a line in the last few weeks something like "if you go back and look at top prospects lists the last 15 years or so the majority of them will have never done anything at the MLB level"

 

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/12/10/18133919/baseball-trades-prospect-rankings-top-50-busts

[JohnBriggs12]

Well it seems the Marlins are open and possibly wanting MLB ready players. We discussed this in this thread on whether they'd value guys like Anderson, Davies, Thames, Santana, etc or if they'd prefer to just be massively awful. It seems they would, so it could reduce the actual prospects we give up. To me, Anderson and/or Davies would make a lot sense for them

 

It makes sense for the Marlins to get back some major league talent in addition to one premium prospect so they have pieces to flip at the deadline. A guy like Anderson or Davies could be really valuable to them in July.

[tmwiese55]

Well it seems the Marlins are open and possibly wanting MLB ready players. We discussed this in this thread on whether they'd value guys like Anderson, Davies, Thames, Santana, etc or if they'd prefer to just be massively awful. It seems they would, so it could reduce the actual prospects we give up. To me, Anderson and/or Davies would make a lot sense for them

 

It makes sense for the Marlins to get back some major league talent in addition to one premium prospect so they have pieces to flip at the deadline. A guy like Anderson or Davies could be really valuable to them in July.

 

Yup, exactly. Myself and one or two others suggested that weeks ago and were yelled at that Miami will only care about prospects, they don't care about winning right now, etc. Of course in reality no one could know either way, I just thought it made sense. This leaked info seems to point that they're at least open to it and our system should be a good match if they are.

 

Davies/Anderson fly ball tendencies should fit really well in that park too. helps inflate their numbers if they just want to flip them and/or helps the team be slightly less awful/embarrassing if they just play them

[HiAndTight]

Not sure of a better spot to put this article. Seems relevant here a bit. I guess it somewhat supports my general more willingness than most to give up prospects. To me, I'm not a hoarder unless their starting pitching and at the MLB ready point like Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta types. Any prospects multiple years/levels away can have so many things go wrong for them before even getting to that point.

 

I think I even had a line in the last few weeks something like "if you go back and look at top prospects lists the last 15 years or so the majority of them will have never done anything at the MLB level"

 

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/12/10/18133919/baseball-trades-prospect-rankings-top-50-busts

 

 

Yes, this is ALWAYS a given. What's also a given is that every great player and just about every great team now needs to use it's farm system to sustain success. Even the Sox who can spend 200 million are built on a foundation of studs from the farm.

 

Every team probably has 5 or 6 guys who have the potential if everything breaks right to be an ace. I'm of the exact opposite view point, you hoard them in the hopes that you catch lightning in a bottle and develop an ace as the value that brings to a team like the Brewers is almost impossible to quantify.

 

 

And just point out a flaw in this logic, you say you like MLB ready pitchers more than younger ones who are futher away and thus more succebtible to the road blocks...well...no offense, but obviously. But how exactly do you develop the next Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff if you're trading all the guys who show promise away when their in the lower minors due to higher risk?

[KeithStone53151]

I believe I was one that suggested those 2 guys as well, more specifically Davies. Those that dismissed us generally don't seem to understand team building. You don't simply send away any player with trade value that you can until you have 17 prospects all hitting the majors at once. It doesn't work that way. You have to incrementally build up. The Brewers traded for Shaw and signed Thames at the lowest point of our rebuild. According to those that dismissed us, it would have been stupid for us to trade for Shaw and instead should have targeted more prospects. A solid #4 starter that plays up to a #3 quite often with 3+ years of team control has quite a bit of value even to a team like Miami.

[tmwiese55]

Not sure of a better spot to put this article. Seems relevant here a bit. I guess it somewhat supports my general more willingness than most to give up prospects. To me, I'm not a hoarder unless their starting pitching and at the MLB ready point like Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta types. Any prospects multiple years/levels away can have so many things go wrong for them before even getting to that point.

 

I think I even had a line in the last few weeks something like "if you go back and look at top prospects lists the last 15 years or so the majority of them will have never done anything at the MLB level"

 

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/12/10/18133919/baseball-trades-prospect-rankings-top-50-busts

 

 

Yes, this is ALWAYS a given. What's also a given is that every great player and just about every great team now needs to use it's farm system to sustain success. Even the Sox who can spend 200 million are built on a foundation of studs from the farm.

 

Every team probably has 5 or 6 guys who have the potential if everything breaks right to be an ace. I'm of the exact opposite view point, you hoard them in the hopes that you catch lightning in a bottle and develop an ace as the value that brings to a team like the Brewers is almost impossible to quantify.

 

 

And just point out a flaw in this logic, you say you like MLB ready pitchers more than younger ones who are futher away and thus more succebtible to the road blocks...well...no offense, but obviously. But how exactly do you develop the next Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff if you're trading all the guys who show promise away when their in the lower minors due to higher risk?

 

By no means would I advocate just trading every SP prospect. I also think you misread my line a bit where I said Starting Pitchers "and" mlb ready players. I didn't say starting pitchers who are mlb ready already. For MKE, hoard SP prospects as much as you reasonably can, in addition place value on guys who are actually at the point ready to go like your Huiras because so few ever even get to that point. That said, if assigning values I'd put more on a Woodruff type who you already know will make some kind of contribution over a lower level guy even if said guy has higher ceiling.

 

Regardless, I didn't mean any of it to be a 'see I was right'. That's irrelevant and not really even true because this is inexact science, this was just a good article going down that path. The point on all of this is finding the market deficiency to take advantage of, years ago it seemed like prospects were being giving away way too easily and now it seems possibly the pendulum has swung a bit that you can get some value because teams are hoarding prospects too much. Even still, MKE is in a tough spot due to their budget issues necessitating putting even more value on prospects than other teams would need.

[bill hAll Star]

I believe I was one that suggested those 2 guys as well, more specifically Davies. Those that dismissed us generally don't seem to understand team building. You don't simply send away any player with trade value that you can until you have 17 prospects all hitting the majors at once. It doesn't work that way. You have to incrementally build up. The Brewers traded for Shaw and signed Thames at the lowest point of our rebuild. According to those that dismissed us, it would have been stupid for us to trade for Shaw and instead should have targeted more prospects. A solid #4 starter that plays up to a #3 quite often with 3+ years of team control has quite a bit of value even to a team like Miami.

 

I don't dismiss incremental moves but the counterpoint could be the Cubs and Astros which were essentially 10-15 guys hitting the majors in a 2 year window + free agents/name vets traded for.

 

Sure, one always would forget to mention someone like Strop or arguably Arrieta was a "younger" player traded for that didn't exactly fit the window given service time, but those were on a smaller deal. If I'm trading my best player, Davies better be a very, very minor detail in the trade...not just a package of solid MLB players.

[KeithStone53151]

I believe I was one that suggested those 2 guys as well, more specifically Davies. Those that dismissed us generally don't seem to understand team building. You don't simply send away any player with trade value that you can until you have 17 prospects all hitting the majors at once. It doesn't work that way. You have to incrementally build up. The Brewers traded for Shaw and signed Thames at the lowest point of our rebuild. According to those that dismissed us, it would have been stupid for us to trade for Shaw and instead should have targeted more prospects. A solid #4 starter that plays up to a #3 quite often with 3+ years of team control has quite a bit of value even to a team like Miami.

 

I don't dismiss incremental moves but the counterpoint could be the Cubs and Astros which were essentially 10-15 guys hitting the majors in a 2 year window + free agents/name vets traded for.

 

Sure, one always would forget to mention someone like Strop or arguably Arrieta was a "younger" player traded for that didn't exactly fit the window given service time, but those were on a smaller deal. If I'm trading my best player, Davies better be a very, very minor detail in the trade...not just a package of solid MLB players.

 

I wouldn't call him a minor piece in my scenarios, but I'll completely agree he's not even close to a centerpiece. Something like Woodruff + Davies + Nottingham is a pretty good package of players...that's the max deal I'd be ok with. I would try to make it Ray + Davies + pieces, but I suspect they'll want one of Peralta/Woodruff. Davies isn't a bad 2nd piece as long as 3 substantial players are going back and he isn't the centerpiece. My primary argument is the "they wouldn't even want him" which is just a silly argument. It's not like they are loaded with mid-back end type starters...or have a logjam of prospects they'd like to fling into the rotation. The Marlins are weak in MLB caliber SP talent and minor league SP talent.

[tmwiese55]

I believe I was one that suggested those 2 guys as well, more specifically Davies. Those that dismissed us generally don't seem to understand team building. You don't simply send away any player with trade value that you can until you have 17 prospects all hitting the majors at once. It doesn't work that way. You have to incrementally build up. The Brewers traded for Shaw and signed Thames at the lowest point of our rebuild. According to those that dismissed us, it would have been stupid for us to trade for Shaw and instead should have targeted more prospects. A solid #4 starter that plays up to a #3 quite often with 3+ years of team control has quite a bit of value even to a team like Miami.

 

I don't dismiss incremental moves but the counterpoint could be the Cubs and Astros which were essentially 10-15 guys hitting the majors in a 2 year window + free agents/name vets traded for.

 

Sure, one always would forget to mention someone like Strop or arguably Arrieta was a "younger" player traded for that didn't exactly fit the window given service time, but those were on a smaller deal. If I'm trading my best player, Davies better be a very, very minor detail in the trade...not just a package of solid MLB players.

 

Agree. you're still going to have to give up some kind of legit prospect too. My only thought on it would be that if they liked a Davies/Santana, etc type it would reduce the level of prospect and/or how many prospects we'd have to give. The Mets rumors seem to indicate that as an option at least. Or maybe the Mets prospects just aren't appealing so that's the only option there, IDK. But at least seems they're open to discussing and we'd have good fits in that case.

[JosephC]

I think Davies had established himself as having pretty good value at the end of 2017, but 2018 may have completely erased all of that. He's a small guy and teams will always worry about his durability and last year he only got to 66 innings. His average fWAR/bWAR last year was only 0.2 (was on the negative side in bWAR). If you included all the good with the bad, from 2016-2018 his numbers are a pretty unremarkable 4.06 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, 4.12 FIP, 106 ERA+.

 

I wouldn't be very interested in Davies if I were sitting in the Marlins GM chair. I'd probably say right up-front that Davies value would have to represent <25% of the value that I would need back in the package to trade Realmuto. Also would immediately point out that I'd have absolutely zero interest in adding Chase Anderson or Eric Thames. Then I'd state that without Hiura or Burnes being part of the deal, that I would be 99.99% confident that I could find a better offer elsewhere.

[FVBrewerFan]

If we're talking MLB ready players, what about Aguilar as the headliner?

[KeithStone53151]

I think Davies had established himself as having pretty good value at the end of 2017, but 2018 may have completely erased all of that. He's a small guy and teams will always worry about his durability and last year he only got to 66 innings. His average fWAR/bWAR last year was only 0.2 (was on the negative side in bWAR). If you included all the good with the bad, from 2016-2018 his numbers are a pretty unremarkable 4.06 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, 4.12 FIP, 106 ERA+.

 

I wouldn't be very interested in Davies if I were sitting in the Marlins GM chair. I'd probably say right up-front that Davies value would have to represent <25% of the value that I would need back in the package to trade Realmuto. Also would immediately point out that I'd have absolutely zero interest in adding Chase Anderson or Eric Thames. Then I'd state that without Hiura or Burnes being part of the deal, that I would be 99.99% confident that I could find a better offer elsewhere.

 

Rumors of Nimmo/Conforto/Rosario somewhat refute that. Also the fact that so many teams have reportedly balked at asking for a prospect of that caliber...refutes that as well. Your analysis are always interesting, but a team has to actually be willing to give up the value. Many teams have moved on to some degree, and other options exist. I highly doubt the Marlins get what you calculate as equal value on this trade. I could be wrong, but if a team was willing to give up a Tucker or Verdugo or Hiura or Acuna or Robles or other top prospect for Realmuto...it would have happened already.

 

The Marlins continue to lose leverage as other catchers are made available, and as teams look at other options to fill their needs. I'm personally expecting the Marlins to simply not trade him at all and miss out on a ton of value.

[Oxy]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but If we also took Starlin Castro and his contract off their hands would that reduce what we would need to give up for Realmuto?

 

Seems to be a great fit if it means we get to keep Hiura and our young pitchers.

 

Davies+Ray+Nottingham+Dubon for Castro and Realmuto?

[adambr2]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but If we also took Starlin Castro and his contract off their hands would that reduce what we would need to give up for Realmuto?

 

Seems to be a great fit if it means we get to keep Hiura and our young pitchers.

 

Davies+Ray+Nottingham+Dubon for Castro and Realmuto?

 

No, it wouldn't. Castro is a decent player, and his contract isn't cost prohibitive at all with $11M committed for 2019 and then a club option of $16M or $1M buyout for 2020. Proposed deal isn't nearly enough.

[TURBO]

 

Davies+Ray+Nottingham+Dubon for Castro and Realmuto?

 

Yes please! And if Santana would sweeten the pot, they could take him too if they would throw in a lottery type guy from the lower levels of their system.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but If we also took Starlin Castro and his contract off their hands would that reduce what we would need to give up for Realmuto?

 

Seems to be a great fit if it means we get to keep Hiura and our young pitchers.

 

Davies+Ray+Nottingham+Dubon for Castro and Realmuto?

 

No, it wouldn't. Castro is a decent player, and his contract isn't cost prohibitive at all with $11M committed for 2019 and then a club option of $16M or $1M buyout for 2020. Proposed deal isn't nearly enough.

 

By all indications the Mets and their new green GM seem to be in "Go For It" mode, so I think they are the team to beat for Realmuto right now. Hopefully the Marlins are still serious about not wanting to trade him within the division. Otherwise the Dodgers match up well. Personally, if he doesn't go to the Brewers, I at least want to see him go for a big package, and not the underwhelming one the Cardinals got Goldschmidt for. If the Dodgers can get him for someone like Joc Pederson and change, or the Mets can get him for Nimmo and change, I'll be disappointed.

[TURBO]

Buster Olney of ESPN.com writes that the sense among some other teams is that the Marlins have begun to push for a J.T. Realmuto trade.

 

It's no surprise that the Marlins are talking trade, but there is a difference in their stance here compared to the past. As Olney describes it, the Marlins previously set a very high bar in regard to the asking price and challenged teams to meet it, but now they are being more aggressive in trying to actually make a deal. According to Joe Frisaro, the Mets are one of three teams involved in trade talks for Realmuto, though the much-hyped three-way trade involving the Yankees is seen as a long shot possibility. The identity of the other two teams isn't yet known. Either way, momentum continues to build at the Winter Meetings in Vegas.

 

Source: Buster Olney on TwitterDec 11 - 8:51 AM

[TURBO]

Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reports that the Mets have discussed a three-team trade with the Yankees and Marlins in which they would land J.T. Realmuto.

 

The Mets and Yankees haven't made a trade involving major leaguers since 2004, but Rosenthal says new Mets general manager Brodie Van Wagenen has been in "steady" talks with the Yanks since he was hired. Rosenthal adds that he's not sure whether Noah Syndergaard is part of the discussions but the Mets would not trade Syndergaard if they only get Realmuto in return. Andy Martino of SNY.tv says that Syndergaard going to the Yankees is a "real possibility," but there are "10 other scenarios" the Mets are considering. We're sure to hear more about this possible three-way deal as the Winter Meetings unfold.

 

Source: Ken Rosenthal on TwitterDec 10 - 11:02 PM

[Oxy]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but If we also took Starlin Castro and his contract off their hands would that reduce what we would need to give up for Realmuto?

 

Seems to be a great fit if it means we get to keep Hiura and our young pitchers.

 

Davies+Ray+Nottingham+Dubon for Castro and Realmuto?

 

No, it wouldn't. Castro is a decent player, and his contract isn't cost prohibitive at all with $11M committed for 2019 and then a club option of $16M or $1M buyout for 2020. Proposed deal isn't nearly enough.

 

With the glut of FA 2nd basemen on the market, Castro probably has slightly negative trade value, but the Brewers are in a much better spot to take him on than most other teams. He is currently deadweight money on their payroll, but he would actually fit in okay on our roster.

 

 

How about Anderson, Thames, Ray and Nottingham for Chen and Realmuto?