Omar Narvaez to Brewers for minor league right-hander Adam Hill and a Competitive Balance draft pick.

[BuckyBrewer61]

IMHO picking up Narvaez is a so-so move. He addresses some needs but also has some weaknesses. Not complaining about that part of it. My concern is dealing away the Comp Pick (this time 'B') for a 2nd straight yr.

 

Last yr the Comp A pick (& the attached bonus pool allotment) was dealt for Claudio. He lasted 1 season before being non-tendered last week. Now the Comp B pick (& the attached bonus pool allotment) has been dealt away.

 

Like it or not, Milwaukee has one of the weakest farm systems in all of baseball. Dealing away opportunities to pick players in the top 75 of the draft & getting more money to sign the talents drafted does not help that. It weakens the foundation of the club further & hurts the opportunity for continued success. Having the extra pick in both years allows for Brewers to explore other draft scenarios (perhaps take a guy that is falling due to signing demands) knowing they have an extra pick & bonus $$ available to them.

 

Many Brewer fans are ticked off by the Cardinals, but give them credit where it is due. They continue to remain relevant & competitive for the post season while they draft & develop talent that can then be used directly by the Major League club or used in trade to get items needed (either in the system or with the MLB club).

 

Again, nothing against Narvaez. He has strengths & weaknesses like all players. I just think the cost to get him was too high for my liking.

 

 

While I understand and agree with the importance of building the minor league system, the thing Stearns is always focused on - and we hear over and over again - is obtaining young, controllable talent.

 

He has a lot of overall value including years of team control. Right now is the time to cash in those assets for major league ready talent, and if/when the time comes to exchange those assets for minor league/prospect talent I suspect he will do so.

 

Bottom line, he is putting us in position to have valuable assets for years to come. At this point they are more heavily major league assets, and I for one will enjoy that while I can.

[Roderick]

IMHO picking up Narvaez is a so-so move. He addresses some needs but also has some weaknesses. Not complaining about that part of it. My concern is dealing away the Comp Pick (this time 'B') for a 2nd straight yr. ......

 

The goal of the draft pick is to make the Brewers roster right? Seems to me we just accelerated the process and took away the real chance of a bust for nothing, losing out on the slight chance we could have had an all-star type player.

 

How much salary would that draft pick have been added to our draft pool? You can add that amount to what is available for the major league budget right now.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Seems like they're a Hader trade away from having the lineup and perhaps even a bullpen spot covered. And then they're sitting on a pile of money to add multiple mid-level pitchers.

[Roderick]

So the Brewers are noticeably deciding to use the draft pick they are gifted out of thin air for being a small market team to add major leaguers to the roster each year. You can either use the extra pick as a lottery ticket in the hope of it one day turning into a major leaguer or send it out straight away after it's awarded for a major leaguer. Seems like the sort of thing that could catch on.

I wish MLB would just let you trade any pick (or maybe any pick in the first few rounds). Seems crazy to be the only league with such rules.

 

They don't let you do that? I figured teams could but they just didn't. Wasn't aware there were rules around it.

 

If they didn't have a rule to protect teams from their owners, there probably would be wholesale trades of all draft picks to make the current roster better, by some aging owner - on his last shot going for it. The NBA had to put rules in place after the Cleveland Cavaliers owner Stepien traded away his teams picks constantly.

[A Swing and A Drive]

Seems like they're a Hader trade away from having the lineup and perhaps even a bullpen spot covered. And then they're sitting on a pile of money to add multiple mid-level pitchers.

 

No need to use Hader to fill these holes, IMHO.

 

For 3B opening, maybe trade from the farm to land JD Davis from the Mets. (or pay less and take on Jed Lowrie's contract for them).

 

Re-Sign Thames, Shaw or similar FA for 1st Base opening. (Justin Smoak perhaps?)

 

Sign Bumgarner or Ryu or Teheran for the Rotation and possibly a Lyles/Gausman/Walker/Miley type starter as well.

 

Put Freddy in the rotation and leave him there to flourish.

 

Keep Hader The Dominator.

 

Dominate.

[ewitkows]

1st can be filled by whats on the market for a few Mil. 3rd is probably another trade to fill that hole

[adambr2]

How is Narvaez projected at $5.1 million? He only needs to be worth 1.0 WAR in 2020 alone to exceed that and we have him for three years.

 

Yeah, those numbers definitely got altered to make this seem more even than it actually was. Just like last week's deal.

 

Joey, I think you're one of the best posters around but I personally think this is unfair to John and their models over at baseballtradevalues.com to assume that without knowing (if that's in fact what you are doing, I could be wrong and maybe you were saying that off an earlier posted projection in which case I apologize).. But as he pointed out, Narvaez was consistently at $5.1M. I checked it this morning and it was indeed at $5.1 well before the return was announced. That was the main reason I didn't expect a significant return so I would disagree with you entirely in this case and say that based on the trade return, John's projections were in fact validated, not altered.

 

To answer SRB (at least in part), you can't just project his WAR out and put a price on it, you also have to subtract his projected arbitration salaries as well. I don't even know if the traditional 9M per WAR value is even applicable anymore or if it is in fact outdated, nor do I know if they use that to calculate value.

[Fear The Chorizo]

IMHO picking up Narvaez is a so-so move. He addresses some needs but also has some weaknesses. Not complaining about that part of it. My concern is dealing away the Comp Pick (this time 'B') for a 2nd straight yr. ......

 

The goal of the draft pick is to make the Brewers roster right? Seems to me we just accelerated the process and took away the real chance of a bust for nothing, losing out on the slight chance we could have had an all-star type player.

 

How much salary would that draft pick have been added to our draft pool? You can add that amount to what is available for the major league budget right now.

 

Plus the Brewers pick at #20, somewhere in the 50s following the Competitive Balance "A" round, and somewhere in the 90s following the Competitive "B" round....and so on for like 37 more rounds - they can just draft the HOF All Star player they would have picked at #71 with one of these other selections next year.

[wallus]

Seems like they're a Hader trade away from having the lineup and perhaps even a bullpen spot covered. And then they're sitting on a pile of money to add multiple mid-level pitchers.

 

No need to use Hader to fill these holes, IMHO.

 

For 3B opening, maybe trade from the farm to land JD Davis from the Mets. (or pay less and take on Jed Lowrie's contract for them).

 

Re-Sign Thames, Shaw or similar FA for 1st Base opening.

 

Sign Bumgarner or Ryu or Teheran for the Rotation and possibly a Lyles/Gausman/Walker/Miley type starter as well.

 

Put Freddy in the rotation and leave him there to flourish.

 

Keep Hader The Dominator.

 

Dominate.

 

JD Davis is horrible defensively.

[BrewFan130]

I like this move for the Brewers. Narvaez defensive short comings aren’t a big deal as the Brewers organization has done a great job of developing defensive catchers over the past 10 years and my hope is they’ll be able to do the same for Narvaez’s defensive side of the game

[3and2Fastball]

I would say that the trade value of Hader went up. Other GM’s are seeing what they already suspected. The Brewers are not sellers & are not rebuilding. If you want to trade for Hader the cost will be very, very high. Otherwise the Brewers keep him and utilize him in a pennant chase. Win-Win for the Crew.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Seems like they're a Hader trade away from having the lineup and perhaps even a bullpen spot covered. And then they're sitting on a pile of money to add multiple mid-level pitchers.

 

No need to use Hader to fill these holes, IMHO.

 

Quick ... who are some underappreciated assets that could provide corner infield production that the Brewers could trade more peanuts for? J.D. Davis and Dominic Smith have been mentioned a lot so far. Jeff McNeil isn't exactly underappreciated, but he'd be a fit. I wonder what it would take to pry Colin Moran away from the Pirates? Or Jose Osuna?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

How is Narvaez projected at $5.1 million? He only needs to be worth 1.0 WAR in 2020 alone to exceed that and we have him for three years.

 

Yeah, those numbers definitely got altered to make this seem more even than it actually was. Just like last week's deal.

 

Joey, I think you're one of the best posters around but I personally think this is unfair to John and their models over at baseballtradevalues.com to assume that without knowing (if that's in fact what you are doing, I could be wrong and maybe you were saying that off an earlier posted projection in which case I apologize).. But as he pointed out, Narvaez was consistently at $5.1M. I checked it this morning and it was indeed at $5.1 well before the return was announced. That was the main reason I didn't expect a significant return so I would disagree with you entirely in this case and say that based on the trade return, John's projections were in fact validated, not altered.

 

To answer SRB (at least in part), you can't just project his WAR out and put a price on it, you also have to subtract his projected arbitration salaries as well. I don't even know if the traditional 9M per WAR value is even applicable anymore or if it is in fact outdated, nor do I know if they use that to calculate value.

 

Perhaps I simply assumed that Narvaez's number was adjusted, and that doesn't appear to be the case. I apologize. But didn't John actually come out and say that Urias's value was lowered following the trade last week, and that it made that deal appear more even than it originally should have? That is a somewhat dangerous precedent to set, as it allows for mystery and confusion when you, in essence, move the goalposts.

[KeithStone53151]

Meanwhile Tom Haudricourt is still waiting by his Fax Machine for more details...

 

You are ruthless!!! I love it!

[KeithStone53151]

As far as filling other holes, keep an eye on Turner/Muncy if/when the Dodgers sign Rendon. That'd be a really nice fit for us. That could be a piece of what we get for Hader if that trade happens, but we could probably get one of those guys for much less than Hader.

[SRB]

How is Narvaez projected at $5.1 million? He only needs to be worth 1.0 WAR in 2020 alone to exceed that and we have him for three years.

 

Yeah, those numbers definitely got altered to make this seem more even than it actually was. Just like last week's deal.

 

Joey, I think you're one of the best posters around but I personally think this is unfair to John and their models over at baseballtradevalues.com to assume that without knowing (if that's in fact what you are doing, I could be wrong and maybe you were saying that off an earlier posted projection in which case I apologize).. But as he pointed out, Narvaez was consistently at $5.1M. I checked it this morning and it was indeed at $5.1 well before the return was announced. That was the main reason I didn't expect a significant return so I would disagree with you entirely in this case and say that based on the trade return, John's projections were in fact validated, not altered.

 

To answer SRB (at least in part), you can't just project his WAR out and put a price on it, you also have to subtract his projected arbitration salaries as well. I don't even know if the traditional 9M per WAR value is even applicable anymore or if it is in fact outdated, nor do I know if they use that to calculate value.

 

I'm well aware of that, but Narvaez is projected to make about $2 million in arbitration this year and over the last three seasons (in a more limited role in terms of playing time), Fangraphs pegs his value at $10.5 million, $8.8 million, $14.5 million. So even factoring massive regression (why?) that $5.1 million figure seems very low. At a minimum the projected value needs to take into account playing time (which is part of why I think the whole trade value concept is dubious from the start)

[liveforoctober]

Seems like they're a Hader trade away from having the lineup and perhaps even a bullpen spot covered. And then they're sitting on a pile of money to add multiple mid-level pitchers.

 

No need to use Hader to fill these holes, IMHO.

 

Quick ... who are some underappreciated assets that could provide corner infield production that the Brewers could trade more peanuts for? J.D. Davis and Dominic Smith have been mentioned a lot so far. Jeff McNeil isn't exactly underappreciated, but he'd be a fit. I wonder what it would take to pry Colin Moran away from the Pirates? Or Jose Osuna?

 

I'm all about digging for treasure so let's keep this conversation moving and finding deals ... but giving Todd Frazier $8mil to hit .250 with 20-25 HR's and unshocking defense isn't the worst move right now. He has a little 1B experience as well so he can fill in both corner IF spots.

[KeithStone53151]

Direct from Stearns, ongoing discussions with Braun about defensive versatility. Obvious answer here is they want him playing some 1b. Dodgers get Rendon, we trade for Muncy, bring in a RH RF. We'd have some truly insane balance and a quality lineup...just need to work on pitching.

 

[adambr2]

Perhaps I simply assumed that Narvaez's number was adjusted, and that doesn't appear to be the case. I apologize. But didn't John actually come out and say that Urias's value was lowered following the trade last week, and that it made that deal appear more even than it originally should have? That is a somewhat dangerous precedent to set, as it allows for mystery and confusion when you, in essence, move the goalposts.

 

Yes, they did. But I think it's important to differentiate when it doesn't happen which it didn't in this case.

 

I thought his explanation was a good one, though, when he pointed out that if Zillow puts a $500,000 estimate on a house that sells for $300,000, they can't insist the house is worth $500,000. They have to adjust their estimates based on the market.

 

I'm pretty sure he admitted they were off on that one, but like any other market, it was never designed to be perfect. It fluctuates based on many factors, one of course, being real life trade results. They have to constantly re-evaluate and adjust. That goes for any value based estimate around.

 

The adjustment wasn't made to save face and try to make it look more even. It was made because they had to adjust values based on what the real life market told them those players were worth.

[dlk9s]

Won't need pitch framing when robot umps move in.

[SRB]

Perhaps I simply assumed that Narvaez's number was adjusted, and that doesn't appear to be the case. I apologize. But didn't John actually come out and say that Urias's value was lowered following the trade last week, and that it made that deal appear more even than it originally should have? That is a somewhat dangerous precedent to set, as it allows for mystery and confusion when you, in essence, move the goalposts.

 

Yes, they did. But I think it's important to differentiate when it doesn't happen which it didn't in this case.

 

I thought his explanation was a good one, though, when he pointed out that if Zillow puts a $500,000 estimate on a house that sells for $300,000, they can't insist the house is worth $500,000. They have to adjust their estimates based on the market.

 

I'm pretty sure he admitted they were off on that one, but like any other market, it was never designed to be perfect. It fluctuates based on many factors, one of course, being real life trade results. They have to constantly re-evaluate and adjust. That goes for any value based estimate around.

 

The adjustment wasn't made to save face and try to make it look more even. It was made because they had to adjust values based on what the real life market told them those players were worth.

 

That Zillow analogy makes no sense. Then every single trade is even by definition.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Perhaps I simply assumed that Narvaez's number was adjusted, and that doesn't appear to be the case. I apologize. But didn't John actually come out and say that Urias's value was lowered following the trade last week, and that it made that deal appear more even than it originally should have? That is a somewhat dangerous precedent to set, as it allows for mystery and confusion when you, in essence, move the goalposts.

 

Yes, they did. But I think it's important to differentiate when it doesn't happen which it didn't in this case.

 

I thought his explanation was a good one, though, when he pointed out that if Zillow puts a $500,000 estimate on a house that sells for $300,000, they can't insist the house is worth $500,000. They have to adjust their estimates based on the market.

 

I'm pretty sure he admitted they were off on that one, but like any other market, it was never designed to be perfect. It fluctuates based on many factors, one of course, being real life trade results. They have to constantly re-evaluate and adjust. That goes for any value based estimate around.

 

The adjustment wasn't made to save face and try to make it look more even. It was made because they had to adjust values based on what the real life market told them those players were worth.

 

But when you do that, it after-the-fact eliminates the idea that sometimes, on the surface, one team just does substantially better than another in a deal. I don't know. I guess I just appreciate accountability, and a simple "Wow, the Brewers blew the Padres out of the water in this deal" or "We obviously screwed up and got the value wrong, this isn't an exact science" is better than going in and retroactively adjusting the numbers. I mean, Urias is an extremely well known prospect, and has been for several years. He certainly wasn't flying under the radar in the prospect community. I don't see how changing your assigned value on a player simply based on the value he was traded for holds much water.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Perhaps I simply assumed that Narvaez's number was adjusted, and that doesn't appear to be the case. I apologize. But didn't John actually come out and say that Urias's value was lowered following the trade last week, and that it made that deal appear more even than it originally should have? That is a somewhat dangerous precedent to set, as it allows for mystery and confusion when you, in essence, move the goalposts.

 

Yes, they did. But I think it's important to differentiate when it doesn't happen which it didn't in this case.

 

I thought his explanation was a good one, though, when he pointed out that if Zillow puts a $500,000 estimate on a house that sells for $300,000, they can't insist the house is worth $500,000. They have to adjust their estimates based on the market.

 

I'm pretty sure he admitted they were off on that one, but like any other market, it was never designed to be perfect. It fluctuates based on many factors, one of course, being real life trade results. They have to constantly re-evaluate and adjust. That goes for any value based estimate around.

 

The adjustment wasn't made to save face and try to make it look more even. It was made because they had to adjust values based on what the real life market told them those players were worth.

 

That Zillow analogy makes no sense. Then every single trade is even by definition.

 

Exactly! It's a cop out in my opinion.

[brewers888]

I don't think this deal moves the needle much in either direction. Narvaez can hit but the defense is atrocious. I think we really have to be concerned about the up the middle defense besides the Gold Glover Cain in CF. Narvaez, Urias, and Hiura have to make this one of the worst teams defensively up the middle.

 

I honestly can't believe we have people clamoring for JD Davis for third base which would further weaken what looks like a terrible defensive club. With this average at best pitching staff we should't be looking to be below average or worse at catcher, shortstop, and second base.

 

Certainly Stearns has earned our trust but this defense is potentially going to be terrible especially if we acquire Davis or McNeil to play third and put Braun at first. I don't understand why we are willingly pretty much ignoring defense especially at key positions like catcher and shortstop.

[Oxy]

 

That Zillow analogy makes no sense. Then every single trade is even by definition.

Huh? It's not like one of the numbers has to be actually 100% correct and one of them has to be 100% wrong. The most likely scenario when there is a large discrepancy between those numbers is that BOTH are off by a bit. Still, Zillow is an ESTIMATE or PREDICTION...Same as the Trade value ESTIMATE or PREDICTION. The actual trade is the actual market value (or actual value agreed upon by the two parties in the transaction, anyway). It is a sound analogy.