Syndergaard and deGrom

[bill hAll Star]

Article popped up on my phone that says the Brewers could get Syndergaard for Aguilar, Phillips and Burnes. I think the Mets would laugh at that one.

 

Let me guess, this is a Bleacher Report or some other fan-generated content article.

[splitterpfj]

I agree with everyone who says there’s no way Hader is traded - forget it.

[KeithStone53151]

I agree with everyone who says there’s no way Hader is traded - forget it.

 

I fully expect the Mets to ask about him. They may even try and play hardball and say they won't do a deal without Hader(which in fact may be true). But if that's the case, the hardest of all passes. I might consider moving hader in a package for both of those guys, but that's not even worth discussing.

[shanedog19]

How many of these big time deadline moves actually put teams over the top? Verlander last year was such a rare deadline move that paid off for the Astros. We didn't even make it to the world series the years we acquired Sabathia or Greinke. I don't think our starting rotation needs as much help as people make it out to be. In my view, the team needs to prioritize the bullpen and getting another bat.

[DocLuna7]

Article popped up on my phone that says the Brewers could get Syndergaard for Aguilar, Phillips and Burnes. I think the Mets would laugh at that one.

 

Let me guess, this is a Bleacher Report or some other fan-generated content article.

 

I believe the author was named "High Heat" or something along those lines.

[bork]

It popped up in TheScore app. It was by Getty Images Sport.

 

Seems legit.

[paul253]

Article popped up on my phone that says the Brewers could get Syndergaard for Aguilar, Phillips and Burnes. I think the Mets would laugh at that one

 

If that were true we’d already have Syndergaard

[Austin Tatious]

Hader is one of the most important assets in the league. I’d be shocked if he got moved. There’s not much out there that’s a higher asset.

 

The Brewers actually have strength in depth. If they deal off 4-6 prospects in 1-2 deals, then our margin of error in our system drops significantly, but you’d still have that next wave of talent. Say you trade off Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta, Ray, Gatewood and maybe a young major leaguer such as Santana. But you’d still be looking at Dubon, Erceg, Zach Brown, Ortiz, Tristen Lutz, Peyton Henry, Jean Carmona et al., and a number of new draftees and lots of international kids grinding out of sight, out of mind.

 

If you deal six guys from my list, you wouldn’t have much further opportunity to make deals until you build back up.

[trwi7]

We shouldn't be trying to put together a massive, mouth-watering overpayment package to entice the Mets to part with one of their top pitchers. Our goal should be to beat other teams offers. If we make the best offer of any team, and the Mets decide it isn't good enough and keep their starters...so be it.

 

I don't see the point in wasting time on making an offer you know is going to be rejected.

[Boomer5]

If Peralta is the real deal we should be rolling with him and saving our assets for hitting.

 

We are not getting either of these guys without Hiura since they are only dangling them looking for an overpay. This is a Sale ++ type of deal because of control, so the Brewers won’t be a match.

[StearnsFTW]

I had a dream last night that the Cubs traded for DeGrom.

 

That sucked

[Austin Tatious]

If Peralta is the real deal we should be rolling with him and saving our assets for hitting.

 

We are not getting either of these guys without Hiura since they are only dangling them looking for an overpay. This is a Sale ++ type of deal because of control, so the Brewers won’t be a match.

 

I like Peralta a lot. His fastball has great movement. Last night, though, he threw a ludicrously low number of off speed pitches so he still has a lot of work to do. But he’s very young.

 

You compare Peralta and Woodruff and Woodruff really needs to develop his approach. Woodruff doesn’t look like he has the same level of movement. If someone has a different take, I’m all ears. I’m going off my eye test, but it looks to me that Woodruff has a straight fastball but he has better control than Peralta. For Woodruff to improve, he needs to keep the hitters more off balance. Peralta can do it naturally with movement and Woodruff needs to do it by mixing his pitch selection and location. Both have good potential.

 

Between the two, I’d prefer moving Woodruff. Famous last words, right?

 

But, the guy I’m getting more and more excited about is Zach Brown. I’m putting him in my top ten next time. His numbers tell a great story. If we move a couple of guys like Woodruff and Burnes, who have been top 100 guys, it’s nice to still have Peralta, Ortiz and Brown at high levels. Ortiz has the issue of whether he can ever consistently get you into the sixth inning.

[brewmann04]

Keep Freddie and I agree about Brown being an up start.

[FVBrewerFan]

Peralta actually threw around 20% off-speed, pretty typical for any pitcher. Plus:

 

1) He threw what Pina/bench told him to throw

2) He has two fastballs, which are very different

3) Why mess with success? 6 shut-out innings means pitch selection was just fine.

 

As he moves along, he may need to throw more curves. But his success will always depend on FB command.

[KeithStone53151]

We shouldn't be trying to put together a massive, mouth-watering overpayment package to entice the Mets to part with one of their top pitchers. Our goal should be to beat other teams offers. If we make the best offer of any team, and the Mets decide it isn't good enough and keep their starters...so be it.

 

I don't see the point in wasting time on making an offer you know is going to be rejected.

 

Have you ever negotiated for anything before in your life? Your first offer definitely shouldn't be your best offer. Start low and work your way up. Even if the Brewers were willing to send Hiura, Burnes, and Peralta in trade for Degrom...opening with that offer would be dreadful negotiation.

[bill hAll Star]

We shouldn't be trying to put together a massive, mouth-watering overpayment package to entice the Mets to part with one of their top pitchers. Our goal should be to beat other teams offers. If we make the best offer of any team, and the Mets decide it isn't good enough and keep their starters...so be it.

 

I don't see the point in wasting time on making an offer you know is going to be rejected.

 

Have you ever negotiated for anything before in your life? Your first offer definitely shouldn't be your best offer. Start low and work your way up. Even if the Brewers were willing to send Hiura, Burnes, and Peralta in trade for Degrom...opening with that offer would be dreadful negotiation.

 

Generally MLB forums discuss the reality of a final trade. I mean, sometimes we'll discuss the back-and-forth of negotiations but I don't spend much of my time going, "I'd call and offer Sogard for Machado and go from there" on this board. That just seems like a waste of time (as if these boards aren't already) and odd.

[adambr2]

I would do Sogard for Machado. That seems like a solid deal for us.

[pacopete4]

I would do Sogard for Machado. That seems like a solid deal for us.

 

Eh I don’t know. Loss of grit might be hard to overcome. (Shoutout to Plush)

[StearnsFTW]

We shouldn't be trying to put together a massive, mouth-watering overpayment package to entice the Mets to part with one of their top pitchers. Our goal should be to beat other teams offers. If we make the best offer of any team, and the Mets decide it isn't good enough and keep their starters...so be it.

 

I don't see the point in wasting time on making an offer you know is going to be rejected.

 

Have you ever negotiated for anything before in your life? Your first offer definitely shouldn't be your best offer. Start low and work your way up. Even if the Brewers were willing to send Hiura, Burnes, and Peralta in trade for Degrom...opening with that offer would be dreadful negotiation.

 

Your approach pisses people off. Maybe not everyone, but definitely a large percentage. You're wasting their time.

[adambr2]

Yeah, I mean you don't want to give away the farm on your first offer, I'll agree with that, but you do want to make a competitive offer if you even want them to deal with you. I'd agree opening with Hiura, Burnes and Peralta would be a bad first offer, unless you wanted to present it as a 'take it or leave it, I'll give you X amount of time and if no then we're done" offer.

 

But starting out offering Woodruff + Phillips would just be laughably bad and not worth their time.

[Boomer5]

I’d guess looking NY they would want a top 1-3 caliber prospect, not a nice depth package. They need to sell a silly deal like this to their fans, and the players need to be super blue chip to make sense giving up an ace with a lot of control.

 

If it’s not a Sale + offer it would make no sense to NY and we just don’t have a guy like Moncada or a Torres.

[KeithStone53151]

Have you ever negotiated for anything before in your life? Your first offer definitely shouldn't be your best offer. Start low and work your way up. Even if the Brewers were willing to send Hiura, Burnes, and Peralta in trade for Degrom...opening with that offer would be dreadful negotiation.

 

Your approach pisses people off. Maybe not everyone, but definitely a large percentage. You're wasting their time.

 

That's entirely untrue, especially considering MLB GM's are involved in negotations in pretty every aspect of what they do. I'm not saying you offer Sogard for Machado. That was an extreme example that someone else came up with. Obviously you should make at least a decent offer. From a housing perspective, if a house is listed at $200k, I'm not talking about offering $20k or even $80k. Maybe the max you are willing to pay is $180k, so you start at $165k or $170k and see what happens. Maybe that house is a hot item and goes for $250k in a bidding war(in which case the $165k offer gets balked at), or maybe your offer is good enough to entice them and you get it at $175k because they are worried the value will go down in a year.

 

That example can surely be translated into prospects to some degree, though that translation is a bit more tricky because every player/prospect is valued differently by every mlb team. My main point, there's a massive gap between an insultingly low offer and a decent offer that can be added to to get a deal done. I don't think Burnes + Peralta as headliners in a Degrom deal is insultingly low. Maybe the Mets demand Hiura and you replace him with one of the pitchers. Or maybe the headliners are good enough but they need a couple good secondary prospects(Ray). Or maybe the Mets don't even bother talking to us because we don't have 5 top 50 prospects and that's the only way to start a conversation for either pitcher.

[KeithStone53151]

I’d guess looking NY they would want a top 1-3 caliber prospect, not a nice depth package. They need to sell a silly deal like this to their fans, and the players need to be super blue chip to make sense giving up an ace with a lot of control.

 

If it’s not a Sale + offer it would make no sense to NY and we just don’t have a guy like Moncada or a Torres.

 

I generally disagree with what you think it would take, but I'll add a comment that I think Josh Hader would qualify as a Moncada/Torres caliber player in your example. That said, he very likely is untouchable.

[bill hAll Star]

Have you ever negotiated for anything before in your life? Your first offer definitely shouldn't be your best offer. Start low and work your way up. Even if the Brewers were willing to send Hiura, Burnes, and Peralta in trade for Degrom...opening with that offer would be dreadful negotiation.

 

Your approach pisses people off. Maybe not everyone, but definitely a large percentage. You're wasting their time.

 

That's entirely untrue, especially considering MLB GM's are involved in negotations in pretty every aspect of what they do. I'm not saying you offer Sogard for Machado. That was an extreme example that someone else came up with. Obviously you should make at least a decent offer. From a housing perspective, if a house is listed at $200k, I'm not talking about offering $20k or even $80k. Maybe the max you are willing to pay is $180k, so you start at $165k or $170k and see what happens. Maybe that house is a hot item and goes for $250k in a bidding war(in which case the $165k offer gets balked at), or maybe your offer is good enough to entice them and you get it at $175k because they are worried the value will go down in a year.

 

That example can surely be translated into prospects to some degree, though that translation is a bit more tricky because every player/prospect is valued differently by every mlb team. My main point, there's a massive gap between an insultingly low offer and a decent offer that can be added to to get a deal done. I don't think Burnes + Peralta as headliners in a Degrom deal is insultingly low. Maybe the Mets demand Hiura and you replace him with one of the pitchers. Or maybe the headliners are good enough but they need a couple good secondary prospects(Ray). Or maybe the Mets don't even bother talking to us because we don't have 5 top 50 prospects and that's the only way to start a conversation for either pitcher.

 

We all get this. When you make a trade, you generally start low and work your way to the middle. Of course you can get lucky and make an initial offer and the seller of the house or the other baseball team could inexplicably just say, "OK, deal." At the very least, it helps you start on the extreme end toward moving to the middle.

 

OK, we all get that.

 

I don't understand why you're even talking about this in the deGrom/Thor trade. Almost every discussion of a trade on these boards involves what it may cost. You came in and noted a borderline insultingly low offer and many people bristled at it...and then you said, "well yeah, that's just a starting point."

 

When I would be talking about a Realmuto trade on this board, the discussion generally would revolve around what the eventual trade may have to be to trump other teams' offers. We don't say, "well I'd call and offer them Gatewood and Nottingham first." There would be 20 pages of meaningless drivel about which B and C-level prospects to start the offer with.

[KeithStone53151]

We all get this. When you make a trade, you generally start low and work your way to the middle. Of course you can get lucky and make an initial offer and the seller of the house or the other baseball team could inexplicably just say, "OK, deal." At the very least, it helps you start on the extreme end toward moving to the middle.

 

OK, we all get that.

 

I don't understand why you're even talking about this in the deGrom/Thor trade. Almost every discussion of a trade on these boards involves what it may cost. You came in and noted a borderline insultingly low offer and many people bristled at it...and then you said, "well yeah, that's just a starting point."

 

When I would be talking about a Realmuto trade on this board, the discussion generally would revolve around what the eventual trade may have to be to trump other teams' offers. We don't say, "well I'd call and offer them Gatewood and Nottingham first." There would be 20 pages of meaningless drivel about which B and C-level prospects to start the offer with.

 

The original poster that I responded to asked why even bother making an offer that you know won't get accepted. That's where my comments stemmed from. I personally think the offers I've proposed are close but again could easily be beat and may not be enough to entice the Mets. But they aren't waste of time offers.