Joakim Soria to the Brewers, Medeiros and Perez (not Hernan) to White Sox

[xisxisxis]

All of Hader, Jeffress, Knebel, and Soria can be used as "closers". Why does one particular player need to be designated to retire the last 3 batters of any game?

 

Because it says so in the Managers book that Counsell bought when he was hired...

[pacopete4]

Hader and Jeffress don’t get closing opportunities mainly because they can cover more than one inning and Knebel has trouble when doing that so it does make some sense that you keep him in more of a traditional role. Soria will probably push that a bit since he too is good at getting the last few outs of a game.

[FVBrewerFan]

All of Hader, Jeffress, Knebel, and Soria can be used as "closers". Why does one particular player need to be designated to retire the last 3 batters of any game?

 

Because it says so in the Managers book that Counsell bought when he was hired...

 

I have no problem having someone as a primary option to use in that role. That doesn't mean nobody else can close. But in a 3-2 game, I want my best pitcher out there in the 9th as often as possible, and that's Hader.

 

I also don't think Hader's splits should matter, he's still better vs RH hitters than Knebel.

 

Finally, I don't think it needs to be the last 3 outs. Hader could handle the last 4,5, even 6 outs. Burnes, Soria, and Albers can now eat the innings Hader has been used for up until now.

[adambr2]

All of Hader, Jeffress, Knebel, and Soria can be used as "closers". Why does one particular player need to be designated to retire the last 3 batters of any game?

 

Because it says so in the Managers book that Counsell bought when he was hired...

 

I have no problem having someone as a primary option to use in that role. That doesn't mean nobody else can close. But in a 3-2 game, I want my best pitcher out there in the 9th as often as possible, and that's Hader.

 

I also don't think Hader's splits should matter, he's still better vs RH hitters than Knebel.

 

Finally, I don't think it needs to be the last 3 outs. Hader could handle the last 4,5, even 6 outs. Burnes, Soria, and Albers can now eat the innings Hader has been used for up until now.

 

What if you've got 1 out and bases loaded in the 7th in a 4-3 game? Isn't that potentially a higher leverage and more important game situation than "saving" Hader to enter with nobody out in a 4-3 game in the 8th or 9th?

[Ennder]

You have a guy in your closer role, you sign a new guy who was in that same role and you comment that one guy is still the closer. There is nothing wrong with this, Counsell would have to be a buffoon not to make that statement assuming Knebel is getting the next save. It doesn't mean he has to stick to it 100% if Knebel continues to pitch poorly, but any manager that doesn't give this comment is doing things wrong.

[istanbultaye]

You're certainly right in that situation being higher leverage. But, I also agree with the sentiment that in a 1 run game, Knebel is probably not the guy I want going with only a 1 run lead in the 9th right now, with his propensity for walking people.

[pacopete4]

Knebel’s walk rate is lower this year than his last two years.

[liveforoctober]

Weird thought... and this isn't what Milwaukee is doing... but has there ever been a situation where a team has flipped a player to free up future Rule 5 issues?

 

For example, the Brewers seem to be looking at a 40 man roster crunch this next year and protecting valuable assets from Rule 5 theft. We traded one of those guys who would need protecting (Kodi) for a presumed 10-14 week rental (Soria).

 

Is there a precedent for the Brewers to now trade Soria to someone else for a prospect of equal value to Kodi, who won't need Rule 5 protection this next year but replenishes the farm?

 

Would be a interesting way to navigate the Rule 5 situation next season while keeping the value in your system, no?

 

Again, this isn't what we are doing... just thought it was an interesting discussion.

[FVBrewerFan]

What if you've got 1 out and bases loaded in the 7th in a 4-3 game? Isn't that potentially a higher leverage and more important game situation than "saving" Hader to enter with nobody out in a 4-3 game in the 8th or 9th?

 

If it's a LH coming up and Hader is available, I go with Hader. RH hitter, I go with Soria or Jeffress.

 

I know that's a specific situation, and there are others that will be similar. Every game/ situation is different. But in your specific example, yea I roll with Hader vs LH batter even though I want to use him as primary closer. Because you could still possibly get the whole 8th inning out of him too in that scenario.

[istanbultaye]

Knebel’s walk rate is lower this year than his last two years.

 

Guess there's some observational bias on my part then. But, even though his walk rate is down a tick, 4.1 is still not good. I guess the real problem is that he's giving up more hits and homers and the rate increases on those far outweigh the small improvement in the walk rate.

[KeithStone53151]

Soria has been specifically devastating to RH batters this year. 493 OPS vs 701 vs LHB. He is the best on the Brewers against RHB this year, just barely ahead of Josh Hader with 524. Taylor Williams is right up there by Hader against RHB but has been very bad against lefties.

 

I guess generally my point is, we should try very hard to have Soria face primarily RHB.

[jerichoholicninja]

Knebel’s walk rate is lower this year than his last two years.

 

Guess there's some observational bias on my part then. But, even though his walk rate is down a tick, 4.1 is still not good. I guess the real problem is that he's giving up more hits and homers and the rate increases on those far outweigh the small improvement in the walk rate.

 

Knebel couldn't throw a strike to Matt Adams a couple days ago but yet he was swinging at everything. He control was atrocious in that inning but somehow got out of it without giving up any walks.

[Roderick]

Weird thought... and this isn't what Milwaukee is doing... but has there ever been a situation where a team has flipped a player to free up future Rule 5 issues?

 

For example, the Brewers seem to be looking at a 40 man roster crunch this next year and protecting valuable assets from Rule 5 theft. We traded one of those guys who would need protecting (Kodi) for a presumed 10-14 week rental (Soria).

 

Is there a precedent for the Brewers to now trade Soria to someone else for a prospect of equal value to Kodi, who won't need Rule 5 protection this next year but replenishes the farm?

 

Would be a interesting way to navigate the Rule 5 situation next season while keeping the value in your system, no?

 

Again, this isn't what we are doing... just thought it was an interesting discussion.

 

There have been teams that have traded for a player before the deadline and then lost some games, so they then traded that same player away and became a seller.

 

I think worrying about 40 man roster spots that will occur months in the future, is a little deep in the woods for your run of the mill article on a player trade you are going to see online. So one would never know how much it may have dictated a trade. You have to be dorks like us to worry to level of detail.

[adambr2]

Relievers are so volatile from year to year and I think Knebel is going to be at the extreme end of that spectrum. He's a guy I can see being completely dominant when he's right and struggle a lot when he can't throw his curve for strikes and hitters can sit dead red on his fastball.

 

I don't know what the best role is for him right now but I do think there's better options for the team than to just have him close every game.

[Eye Black]

Weird thought... and this isn't what Milwaukee is doing... but has there ever been a situation where a team has flipped a player to free up future Rule 5 issues?

 

For example, the Brewers seem to be looking at a 40 man roster crunch this next year and protecting valuable assets from Rule 5 theft. We traded one of those guys who would need protecting (Kodi) for a presumed 10-14 week rental (Soria).

 

Is there a precedent for the Brewers to now trade Soria to someone else for a prospect of equal value to Kodi, who won't need Rule 5 protection this next year but replenishes the farm?

 

Would be a interesting way to navigate the Rule 5 situation next season while keeping the value in your system, no?

 

Again, this isn't what we are doing... just thought it was an interesting discussion.

 

There have been teams that have traded for a player before the deadline and then lost some games, so they then traded that same player away and became a seller.

 

I think worrying about 40 man roster spots that will occur months in the future, is a little deep in the woods for your run of the mill article on a player trade you are going to see online. So one would never know how much it may have dictated a trade. You have to be dorks like us to worry to level of detail.

I don’t have any idea for their motivation for doing so, but in 2009 the Red Sox traded prospects for Adam LaRoche and then traded him away a week later at the deadline. They were a very good team at the time and all I remember was it seeming sort of strange.

 

I was in Boston at the Red Sox game the day before he was traded (also known as the day the story broke about David Ortiz testing positive for performance enhancing drugs years earlier followed by him hitting the go ahead HR in the game).

[Roderick]

I see Kodi went from being #13 in the Brewers farm system (per mlb.com) to #19 in the White Sox system.

 

That was his ranking after the revisions they just made to include draft picks and move players up and down.

[brewcrewdue80]

Part of that 40man crunch idea and parting with Medeiros is that maybe a couple guys they werent concerned with protecting, have now jumped to wanting on the 40man. Gatewood, Ortiz, Ponce, Lara? Top names off my head. Milw may have come to the conclusion Kodi is a RP future for a ceiling and chose such names as above to have higher ceilings.

 

On a note, remember there was a Chris Sale sorta comp in Kodi's delivery. White Sox may have the fix for him to see that comp come to realization. Which would absolutely suck. But continues to show Milw's player development lacking for premium talents.

[Patrick425]

 

Well unless he declines the option, the Brewers would have to pay the $1M buyout. In effect, the Brewers decision making will be using $9M as his cost for 2019.

 

If he continues to pitch as he has this year, through the end of the year, and fits into the clubhouse - it would be a pretty hard decision to let him go.

 

I still would not do it. If my math is correct they are paying the current bullpen about $11M total. So, almost double the bullpen budget to add one more pitcher? No thanks.

I'm not sure why that amount for 1 year matters to any fan. It's not coming out of your pocket and there's likely no opportunity cost for that type of deal.

 

I always find the "it's not coming out of your pocket, why do you care" argument interesting. As a fan of the Brewers I care about where and how they spend their money because I realize they have do not have the same budget as the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Yankess, Red Sox, etc. As a fan, I would rather see them spend $10M on a different position regardless if it's for one year or $50M for 5 years. $10M for one year for one reliever for a team with the market size/budget of the Brewers would be idiotic. Read Moneyball. I'm pretty confident Stearns would never exercise that option if he had the choice.

[Oxy]

 

I always find the "it's not coming out of your pocket, why do you care" argument interesting. As a fan of the Brewers I care about where and how they spend their money because I realize they have do not have the same budget as the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Yankess, Red Sox, etc. As a fan, I would rather see them spend $10M on a different position regardless if it's for one year or $50M for 5 years. $10M for one year for one reliever for a team with the market size/budget of the Brewers would be idiotic. Read Moneyball. I'm pretty confident Stearns would never exercise that option if he had the choice.

 

I don't know. I'd say that a bad 5 year 50M deal is about 5 times worse than a bad 1 year $10M contract.

 

I wouldn't want to make a habit out of bad value deals, but if there is budget room and the player improves the team I don't see why the occasional overspend on a bad one year contract should make any difference to a fan.

[Thurston Fluff]

A bad one year contract is what 10-20 million? A bad multi year contract is easily double that. Unless the team can afford to eat the contract, it costs a roster spot for several years to boot.

[jerichoholicninja]

What exactly could that $10M be spent on for next year? The whole amount will get you basically a Soria-like reliever or an average at best player at any other position. Or you could split it among different players and get a bunch of Eric Sogard's. It's basically a market value contract and if Soria finishes like he started I really hope they exercise that option.

[monty57]

What exactly could that $10M be spent on for next year? The whole amount will get you basically a Soria-like reliever or an average at best player at any other position. Or you could split it among different players and get a bunch of Eric Sogard's. It's basically a market value contract and if Soria finishes like he started I really hope they exercise that option.

 

The Brewers could have their entire team back, along with the required arby increases, so they will likely be in a bit of a salary crunch. I'd guess they'll have the room to hold onto Soria, and expect they probably will exercise the option. If they don't, I'd hope it is because they have the opportunity to acquire a significant upgrade at SP, C or 2B.

 

As hard as it is to see a guy you've followed traded away, a team with a deep farm will have to make some of these trades. Instead of losing "fringe 40-man" guys for nothing, they are exactly the guys we should use in trades when we're buyers at the deadline. I'd expect some more of these type guys to be the "bait" we use when/if we upgrade the middle infield or rotation.

 

It's a good thing that we have promising players like Kodi sitting so far down our organizational depth chart. I think Stearns is trying to build the team like the Astros, with talent up and down the system. If we get there, we will always have good players who we either trade away, lose to Rule 5, or simply rot in the minors because we have better players ahead of them on the depth chart.

[Patrick425]

What exactly could that $10M be spent on for next year? The whole amount will get you basically a Soria-like reliever or an average at best player at any other position. Or you could split it among different players and get a bunch of Eric Sogard's. It's basically a market value contract and if Soria finishes like he started I really hope they exercise that option.

 

 

The $10M could be spent just about anywhere else. It could be part of a multi-year deal given to a FA starting pitcher or position player. Or part of a contract extension to keep a current player on the roster. Again, spending $10M for a reliever for one year, whether it is part of a multi-year or not, is not just bad, it's stupid for a team like the Brewers. Decent relievers are easier to find on the cheap (the entire Brewer bullpen, less Soria, is $11M...and they are pretty good) than just about any other position.

[LouisEly]

Well, judging by the market last offseason, $10M could get you a Moustakas-type player for a year and leave $4.5M in change to get a Matt Albers or Tony Watson or Dan Jennings type of reliever.

 

I don't foresee the market changing drastically - except for the premier free agents, a la Machado, etc. - so $10M could plug a few holes. It could easily hold down 2B for a year until Hiura is ready.

[SRB]

Well, judging by the market last offseason, $10M could get you a Moustakas-type player for a year and leave $4.5M in change to get a Matt Albers or Tony Watson or Dan Jennings type of reliever.

 

I don't foresee the market changing drastically - except for the premier free agents, a la Machado, etc. - so $10M could plug a few holes. It could easily hold down 2B for a year until Hiura is ready.

 

That's not how much a Moustakas-type players costs. Moustakas will likely get $80+ million plus this offseason.