Giants Relievers...

[brewmann04]

I have to agree if they view this as a WS team then they need to fix any issues asap.

[Brew crew 92]

But there is so OBVIOUSLY a reason to trade for relievers, it's comical to argue otherwise.

 

There's always a reason to make a trade, every day of the season, as you can always get better and there will always be a player out there better than the worst player on your roster who can be had for a price you can afford. So yeah, in that sense there's a reason.

 

But specific to the current situation? Honestly, I'd argue not really. Not yet. Unless the kind of opportunity shows up that you'd take any day, even with a good bullpen. Only 13 games into the season, bullpen pitchers have between 1 and 7 IP. 2/3 of the bullpen have ERAs way, way above their career numbers. Brewers bullpen currently has a 5.45 ERA. The 9 guys who have so far pitched out of the pen have a 3.66 ERA between them (equally weighted), which for Anderson and Guerra is mostly as starters. That would put them ~12th in the majors as thing stand now. Which isn't amazing, but it's slightly better than average. So you have to ask yourself, is there anything that suggests they won't pitch more in line with their career norms going forward? xFIP (4.18, 91 xFIP-) and SIERA (4.01), the two best publicly available predictive metrics of the kind until DRA is up and running would suggest that improvements are to be expected. It's early days with small sample sizes for those metrics too, but at this point they're still much, much, much better than using current ERA. I don't know what their internal metrics show, but unless they're alarmingly bad I'd have patience. There are still internal replacements to be evaluated, whether in the form of JJ, Nelson, Burnes/Woodruff, Fields, Hart or younger guys like Olczak, Sanchez, Brown. Give it some time to filter out the worst noise, and to try the options that can be used without having to release/waiver anyone or give up any prospects.

 

Another reason to do that is that the market in April is bad. Yes, trades can be made. But it's very much a sellers market; only the teams that have already given up on the season will be shopping relievers. Others will have to be absolutely blown away by the offer, and that's something we shouldn't be doing. Even the teams perfectly willing to sell will be hesistant, as there will be greater demand later in the season. There will also be an increased supply eventually, as teams drop out of the playoff hunt, but demand will increase earlier than supply does.

 

It's not that wins in April matters less than at any other point of the year. It's that with these small sample sizes, and the factors unique to March/April (Weather, offseason rust, adjusting to new environments etc) it's much harder to know what's what. Stats and wins and losses are so heavily influenced by individual blowup outings, by the quality and handedness of hitters and pitchers faced, by whether fly balls hit just above or just below a yellow line on a wall, by umpire performance (Could you really read much into the numbers for a pitcher, in either direction, if he'd made his debut with last night's Phil Cuzzi strike zone?), by weather, by which ballparks played in, by not being in the right place mentally after a breakup or the loss of a pet or whatever. Or by many, many other reasons that can be classified as luck or chance or temporary circumstances.

 

Any money or prospects spent now, is money and prospects not available to use later. None of us knows how much budget room there is, but with an already record payroll I think it's safer to lean towards the lower part of the spectrum than the top end. The later in the season a trade is made, the smaller the prorated part of the salary taken on is. At that point you also know your needs better. While one can argue about whether farm system rankings are too low on the Brewers, it's still not exactly a top system after recent trades and graduations. That needs to be managed properly. A reliever acquired at this point needs to be a "sure thing". It needs to be someone who will frequently see high-leverage situations even when/if the likes of JJ, Nelson, Burnes join the bullpen; improving the performance in low-leverage situations does very little to get more wins. There aren't many of those available out there. And for those who are, thier teams hold all the cards. I would certainly put up a high asking price and not waiver one bit on that until at least June if I was them.

 

Overall I'd argue that we need to wait a couple of weeks at least before making any moves involving actual prospects or any real money. 1 month is still a very small sample, 1 month of March/April baseball even more so, but at least you can glean *something* from that. At that point we'll have a better idea of where JJ and Nelson are, if some of the early-season struggles are just that or indicative of something else, of which teams might be willing to trade, and about many other things.

 

In my opinion the only problem with your well written thesis is the patience you preach.

 

I would argue the following:

 

1.) the toughest stretch of games for the year starts today, and by May this team could be 5+ games out by then. With our pitching at the PRESENT time, who will we be favored against?

 

2.) we don’t need to wait till May to know outside of Hader , 0 high leverage arms. And I’m including jeffress. JJ gonna need more time to regain last year’s form, IF he’s able to at at all this year.

 

3.) we don’t need to wait till May to know that Petricka Barnes FOR SURE shouldn’t be in this pen. Albers Wilson are major ? Also.

 

4.) the crew is courageous to put our young guns in rotation, but especially this early in their big league starting careers, growing pains would be describing it quite mildly. It would be one thing to have a tor amongst the other two, but we don’t. Chacin at best a 3 and Davies a 4-5, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on a bottom of the league pen.

 

What to do now?

 

STRENGTHEN THE PEN

 

1. Call up Houser today and Brown on Sunday, to replace Petricka Barnes.

 

2.) Leave jeffress in AAA till velo up where it should be for him to have a good chance at success.

 

3.) trade for Greene or givens or Watson giving us 2 high leverage pen arms going into next weeks homestand. If we have to give up a better prospect because it’s april so be it. Lose the battle win the war.

[coolhandluke121]

I haven't supported very many "win now" moves but I would lean towards it now. The ability and talent is there to contend and you don't want a few weak links to undermine an otherwise good team. The cost won't be exorbitant, and I believe this team is very good at differentiating between those prospects that are truly rare, coveted commodities (Burnes, Woodruff, Hiura, Peralta) and those that are likely to become eminently replaceable major league players (Brinson, Phillips, Ortiz, probably Ray).

[trwi7]

The cost won't be exorbitant

 

If you're looking to trade for high leverage relievers two weeks into the season, you're desperate and the cost will be exorbitant and we don't really have the prospects to pay an exorbitant cost unless you're willing to trade Hiura or maybe Brown.

[wntrtxn21]

But there is so OBVIOUSLY a reason to trade for relievers, it's comical to argue otherwise.

 

There's always a reason to make a trade, every day of the season, as you can always get better and there will always be a player out there better than the worst player on your roster who can be had for a price you can afford. So yeah, in that sense there's a reason.

 

But specific to the current situation? Honestly, I'd argue not really. Not yet. Unless the kind of opportunity shows up that you'd take any day, even with a good bullpen. Only 13 games into the season, bullpen pitchers have between 1 and 7 IP. 2/3 of the bullpen have ERAs way, way above their career numbers. Brewers bullpen currently has a 5.45 ERA. The 9 guys who have so far pitched out of the pen have a 3.66 ERA between them (equally weighted), which for Anderson and Guerra is mostly as starters. That would put them ~12th in the majors as thing stand now. Which isn't amazing, but it's slightly better than average. So you have to ask yourself, is there anything that suggests they won't pitch more in line with their career norms going forward? xFIP (4.18, 91 xFIP-) and SIERA (4.01), the two best publicly available predictive metrics of the kind until DRA is up and running would suggest that improvements are to be expected. It's early days with small sample sizes for those metrics too, but at this point they're still much, much, much better than using current ERA. I don't know what their internal metrics show, but unless they're alarmingly bad I'd have patience. There are still internal replacements to be evaluated, whether in the form of JJ, Nelson, Burnes/Woodruff, Fields, Hart or younger guys like Olczak, Sanchez, Brown. Give it some time to filter out the worst noise, and to try the options that can be used without having to release/waiver anyone or give up any prospects.

 

Another reason to do that is that the market in April is bad. Yes, trades can be made. But it's very much a sellers market; only the teams that have already given up on the season will be shopping relievers. Others will have to be absolutely blown away by the offer, and that's something we shouldn't be doing. Even the teams perfectly willing to sell will be hesistant, as there will be greater demand later in the season. There will also be an increased supply eventually, as teams drop out of the playoff hunt, but demand will increase earlier than supply does.

 

It's not that wins in April matters less than at any other point of the year. It's that with these small sample sizes, and the factors unique to March/April (Weather, offseason rust, adjusting to new environments etc) it's much harder to know what's what. Stats and wins and losses are so heavily influenced by individual blowup outings, by the quality and handedness of hitters and pitchers faced, by whether fly balls hit just above or just below a yellow line on a wall, by umpire performance (Could you really read much into the numbers for a pitcher, in either direction, if he'd made his debut with last night's Phil Cuzzi strike zone?), by weather, by which ballparks played in, by not being in the right place mentally after a breakup or the loss of a pet or whatever. Or by many, many other reasons that can be classified as luck or chance or temporary circumstances.

 

Any money or prospects spent now, is money and prospects not available to use later. None of us knows how much budget room there is, but with an already record payroll I think it's safer to lean towards the lower part of the spectrum than the top end. The later in the season a trade is made, the smaller the prorated part of the salary taken on is. At that point you also know your needs better. While one can argue about whether farm system rankings are too low on the Brewers, it's still not exactly a top system after recent trades and graduations. That needs to be managed properly. A reliever acquired at this point needs to be a "sure thing". It needs to be someone who will frequently see high-leverage situations even when/if the likes of JJ, Nelson, Burnes join the bullpen; improving the performance in low-leverage situations does very little to get more wins. There aren't many of those available out there. And for those who are, thier teams hold all the cards. I would certainly put up a high asking price and not waiver one bit on that until at least June if I was them.

 

Overall I'd argue that we need to wait a couple of weeks at least before making any moves involving actual prospects or any real money. 1 month is still a very small sample, 1 month of March/April baseball even more so, but at least you can glean *something* from that. At that point we'll have a better idea of where JJ and Nelson are, if some of the early-season struggles are just that or indicative of something else, of which teams might be willing to trade, and about many other things.

 

In my opinion the only problem with your well written thesis is the patience you preach.

 

I would argue the following:

 

1.) the toughest stretch of games for the year starts today, and by May this team could be 5+ games out by then. With our pitching at the PRESENT time, who will we be favored against?

 

2.) we don’t need to wait till May to know outside of Hader , 0 high leverage arms. And I’m including jeffress. JJ gonna need more time to regain last year’s form, IF he’s able to at at all this year.

 

3.) we don’t need to wait till May to know that Petricka Barnes FOR SURE shouldn’t be in this pen. Albers Wilson are major ? Also.

 

4.) the crew is courageous to put our young guns in rotation, but especially this early in their big league starting careers, growing pains would be describing it quite mildly. It would be one thing to have a tor amongst the other two, but we don’t. Chacin at best a 3 and Davies a 4-5, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on a bottom of the league pen.

 

What to do now?

 

STRENGTHEN THE PEN

 

1. Call up Houser today and Brown on Sunday, to replace Petricka Barnes.

 

2.) Leave jeffress in AAA till velo up where it should be for him to have a good chance at success.

 

3.) trade for Greene or givens or Watson giving us 2 high leverage pen arms going into next weeks homestand. If we have to give up a better prospect because it’s april so be it. Lose the battle win the war.

 

If you're talking about Shane Greene, NO thanks. Career ERA of 4.78 - more hits than IPs. He stunk last year and has already been on the DL this year. Givens from the O's would be nice, depending on what they'd want for him. He's making $2.15M and is arby eligible again. FA in 2022, so he would be a nice pickup. Watson would be a heck of a lot better option than Claudio, but again, what would it take to get him from the Giants?

[coolhandluke121]

The cost won't be exorbitant

 

If you're looking to trade for high leverage relievers two weeks into the season, you're desperate and the cost will be exorbitant and we don't really have the prospects to pay an exorbitant cost unless you're willing to trade Hiura or maybe Brown.

 

I was referring to the debate about trading Corey Ray for bullpen help. I don't expect a great reliever for that, but I'd like to see them go after a couple Soria types earlier than later this year even if that means paying a little more than you'd pay at the trade deadline.

[Brew crew 92]

What about stearns favorite pen arm trading partner rick Hahn?

 

Alex colome-7.3 mil 2nd yr Arb.

Kelvin Herrera- 9 mil each of next 2 yrs plus club option 10 mil

 

Colome > Ray & hill

 

Herrera > Grisham & hill & Lazar

[coolhandluke121]

Haven't both those guys been all-stars? And they're not old or anything...

 

I'd do either of those trades, but I think Chicago could do better. I think the Brewers should be looking at one or two tiers below guys like that, because that would still be a big improvement over some of the guys they're relying on. I'm not looking for leverage guys; I'm just looking for a few guys that aren't leverage for the opponents.

 

Soria was 34 and making $10m when the Brewers acquired him. Swarzak only had one good year under his belt. That's the type of acquisition that wouldn't cost much, and I think it would make a big difference if they could pull a few trades like that because there is such a thing as anti-leverage, which is a lot worse that average-ness, and the Brewers have a lot of it in the pen right now.

[Brew crew 92]

Haven't both those guys been all-stars? And they're not old or anything...

 

I'd do either of those trades, but I think Chicago could do better. I think the Brewers should be looking at one or two tiers below guys like that, because that would still be a big improvement over some of the guys they're relying on. I'm not looking for leverage guys; I'm just looking for a few guys that aren't leverage for the opponents.

 

Soria was 34 and making $10m when the Brewers acquired him. Swarzak only had one good year under his belt. That's the type of acquisition that wouldn't cost much, and I think it would make a big difference if they could pull a few trades like that because there is such a thing as anti-leverage, which is a lot worse that average-ness, and the Brewers have a lot of it in the pen right now.

 

But don’t we have what your looking for already in the minors that can be brought up?

 

In my opinion, what this pen needs is 1 more high leverage arm we can use when Hader is down that can close out or shut down the enemy. Now maybe that arm is jeffress? I think we’ll know more 10-15 games from now. If not jeffress, Nelson? Trade?

 

Counsell is doing a tremendous job knowing who to put in and when. I believe he, like myself, has 0 faith or trust in bringing in Barnes Petricka. I’m looking for them to go ASAP. Jackson fields Sanchez.

 

The crew must really want to see what houser can do as a starter, or wouldn’t he be in the pen?

 

Brown, thinking they see a potential quality starter long term and don’t want to start his clock til after S 2.

[coolhandluke121]

 

But don’t we have what your looking for already in the minors that can be brought up?

 

 

That's what a lot of us said about Williams and Barnes. I don't think it's safe to assume that your best pitching prospects are automatically good enough to hold their own in a contender's bullpen in their first stint in the big leagues, even if they are Corbin Burnes and Brandon Woodruff - let alone when they're a tier or three below those guys as prospects.

[OnTheBlack]

I haven't supported very many "win now" moves but I would lean towards it now. The ability and talent is there to contend and you don't want a few weak links to undermine an otherwise good team. The cost won't be exorbitant, and I believe this team is very good at differentiating between those prospects that are truly rare, coveted commodities (Burnes, Woodruff, Hiura, Peralta) and those that are likely to become eminently replaceable major league players (Brinson, Phillips, Ortiz, probably Ray).

 

 

And if that is NOT the case...if teams are unwilling to part with their relievers at this point in time and there is not a trade market, then obviously you don't force a trade. But I agree, we are or should be solid everywhere else for the most part, no reason to not address an area of the team that you can already see needs it.

[adambr2]

I think Will Smith makes too much sense not to add him back from the Giants.

 

The Giants aren't contending and I would look to make this move as soon as June. It would be great to add another power lefty to the pen. The price should be suppressed with Smith being a rental.

 

As an aside, Smith and Jeffress are best friends and I think it would be really cool to see them reunited here after the deadline deals in 2016.

[Brew crew 92]

I think Will Smith makes too much sense not to add him back from the Giants.

 

The Giants aren't contending and I would look to make this move as soon as June. It would be great to add another power lefty to the pen. The price should be suppressed with Smith being a rental.

 

As an aside, Smith and Jeffress are best friends and I think it would be really cool to see them reunited here after the deadline deals in 2016.

 

Rental yes, but still gonna cost us More than Soria did last year, imo. If jeffress continues to improve and Burnes dominates not sure Stearns would want to part with the prospects it would take to land smith.

[adambr2]

I think one guy they should probably actively look to deal is Marcos Diplan, who is becoming a liability on our 40 but would probably fit well on a rebuilding club who doesn't mind being patient with him.

 

I think the peak of what the Giants can really ask for is a comparable to the Kelvin Herrera deal last year which if I remember was headlined around an organizational top 10-12.

 

Something around a Payton Henry + Marcos Diplan + a change of scenery guy like Trent Grisham I think is a pretty fair rental price for Smith.

[coolhandluke121]

 

Something around a Payton Henry + Marcos Diplan + a change of scenery guy like Trent Grisham I think is a pretty fair rental price for Smith.

 

I couldn't do that soon enough if I was in charge and it were an option. The Brewers need to worry about a title. No, that doesn't mean trading Hiura for a reliever, but I think it would be stubborn not to part with any prospects.

 

Their staff is stabilizing right now, but they should heed the warning signs we saw last month because there's a recent history of tremendous struggles and volatility for many of the guys who are pitching well right now.

[adambr2]

 

Something around a Payton Henry + Marcos Diplan + a change of scenery guy like Trent Grisham I think is a pretty fair rental price for Smith.

 

I couldn't do that soon enough if I was in charge and it were an option. The Brewers need to worry about a title. No, that doesn't mean trading Hiura for a reliever, but I think it would be stubborn not to part with any prospects.

 

Their staff is stabilizing right now, but they should heed the warning signs we saw last month because there's a recent history of tremendous struggles and volatility for many of the guys who are pitching well right now.

 

I could be underestimating Smith's market too. You just never know. Might take an Erceg or Lutz headliner which would be tougher.

[wallus]

I know you have to give to get and I don't want to go all Turbo on these deals but I would try really hard not to trade Henry. I think he will be a MLB contributor in the future.

[Brew crew 92]

 

Something around a Payton Henry + Marcos Diplan + a change of scenery guy like Trent Grisham I think is a pretty fair rental price for Smith.

 

I couldn't do that soon enough if I was in charge and it were an option. The Brewers need to worry about a title. No, that doesn't mean trading Hiura for a reliever, but I think it would be stubborn not to part with any prospects.

 

Their staff is stabilizing right now, but they should heed the warning signs we saw last month because there's a recent history of tremendous struggles and volatility for many of the guys who are pitching well right now.

 

I could be underestimating Smith's market too. You just never know. Might take an Erceg or Lutz headliner which would be tougher.

 

I think it would take a lutz+ to land Smith. He pitched lights out last year and is pitching well this year. Love your let’s trade diplan idea. Maybe:

 

Lutz & Houser > Smith. Not sure stearns would do this, zaidi probably would.

[wntrtxn21]

I think one guy they should probably actively look to deal is Marcos Diplan, who is becoming a liability on our 40 but would probably fit well on a rebuilding club who doesn't mind being patient with him.

 

I think the peak of what the Giants can really ask for is a comparable to the Kelvin Herrera deal last year which if I remember was headlined around an organizational top 10-12.

 

Something around a Payton Henry + Marcos Diplan + a change of scenery guy like Trent Grisham I think is a pretty fair rental price for Smith.

 

I don't think the Giants would take anything close to your deal. Diplan is a throw-in at best. He stunk at A+ last year and is getting killed at AA this year. Henry is a catcher, but he isn't hitting much. Grisham is a no power, lite hitting OF. The Giants wouldn't have much interest in Grisham or Diplan. They would be trading Smith for Henry and would want much, much more.

[HiAndTight]

Jeremy Jeffress was literally acquired off the scrap heap, TWICE. They'll keep shuffling and picking until they have the right group.

 

 

He was literally acquired off the scrap heap? I thought we just signed him after he was released after 3 innings one year and then traded for him another time, but if they have talented pitches just piling up on a scrap heap somewhere, let's try them out first!

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Looking at the caliber of prospects that have been traded in recent years for rental relievers, I think some of you are either way overvaluing the cost of someone like Smith, or are undervaluing our prospects. I could see Smith being dealt for perhaps a couple guys in the teens or 20s (think Webb, Stokes, Bello, Gatewood level) and a lottery ticket-type. I can't see Smith's value being leaps and bounds higher than Soria's was last year, and Soria brought back Medieros (#13 at the time of the deal) and a lottery ticket.

[Brew crew 92]

Looking at the caliber of prospects that have been traded in recent years for rental relievers, I think some of you are either way overvaluing the cost of someone like Smith, or are undervaluing our prospects. I could see Smith being dealt for perhaps a couple guys in the teens or 20s (think Webb, Stokes, Bello, Gatewood level) and a lottery ticket-type. I can't see Smith's value being leaps and bounds higher than Soria's was last year, and Soria brought back Medieros (#13 at the time of the deal) and a lottery ticket.

 

Smith pitching better than Soria and for less money, wish you were right, but think it be a higher cost.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Looking at the caliber of prospects that have been traded in recent years for rental relievers, I think some of you are either way overvaluing the cost of someone like Smith, or are undervaluing our prospects. I could see Smith being dealt for perhaps a couple guys in the teens or 20s (think Webb, Stokes, Bello, Gatewood level) and a lottery ticket-type. I can't see Smith's value being leaps and bounds higher than Soria's was last year, and Soria brought back Medieros (#13 at the time of the deal) and a lottery ticket.

 

Smith pitching better than Soria and for less money, wish you were right, but think it be a higher cost.

 

Soria had a 2.56 ERA and 16 saves at the time of the deal, so he was pitching great. He also had a larger track record as a closer than Smith, and the White Sox sent money the Brewers' way to help offset Soria's remaining salary. If the deal is made earlier in the year, the cost may be more significant, but value wise, they are very close. Smith being a lefty may raise his value a tad, but I don't believe a trade for Smith is going to cost the Brewers a top 5-10 prospect.

[Brew crew 92]

Looking at the caliber of prospects that have been traded in recent years for rental relievers, I think some of you are either way overvaluing the cost of someone like Smith, or are undervaluing our prospects. I could see Smith being dealt for perhaps a couple guys in the teens or 20s (think Webb, Stokes, Bello, Gatewood level) and a lottery ticket-type. I can't see Smith's value being leaps and bounds higher than Soria's was last year, and Soria brought back Medieros (#13 at the time of the deal) and a lottery ticket.

 

Smith pitching better than Soria and for less money, wish you were right, but think it be a higher cost.

 

Soria had a 2.56 ERA and 16 saves at the time of the deal, so he was pitching great. He also had a larger track record as a closer than Smith, and the White Sox sent money the Brewers' way to help offset Soria's remaining salary. If the deal is made earlier in the year, the cost may be more significant, but value wise, they are very close. Smith being a lefty may raise his value a tad, but I don't believe a trade for Smith is going to cost the Brewers a top 5-10 prospect.

 

Cards boards calling for c- mart for Smith, So there’s gonna be more competition for Smith imo.

 

Houser & Stokes & Grisham > Smith or

Houser & Lutz > Smith

 

Soria was 34 at the time of trade, Smith 29 with better stuff.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

Cards boards calling for c- mart for Smith, So there’s gonna be more competition for Smith imo.

 

Houser & Stokes & Grisham > Smith or

Houser & Lutz > Smith

 

Soria was 34 at the time of trade, Smith 29 with better stuff.

 

It's a half year rental, so age is completely insignificant. And also just because a team's fanbase floats an idea, it doesn't mean that the idea makes any sense. Would the Giants want Carlos Martinez, who is making nearly $12 million this year, if they are in a rebuild?

 

There is no way the Brewers should even entertain trading a prospect the level of Lutz for a rental reliever. Nor do I think he'd cost close to that much to acquire. You are significantly overvaluing the rental market, or undervaluing our prospects.