Justin Turner to Red Sox; 2 years, $22 Mil (player option)

[wallus]

10 minutes ago, Thurston Fluff said:

 

We have a team that can contend because we let players like Turang get a chance not in spite of it. Had we went out and got a free agent starting pitcher a few years ago we'd have wasted a decent portion of Peralta's value by having him in the bullpen. Just think of what would have happened if we didn't actually give Burnes a chance to work out his problems and just signed some aging veteran. We'd have wasted a year or two of his time here just because he struggled for a year. Not to mention how negatively it effects trade values. Not much demand for old average players. A team like the Brewers have to trust young players to come in and figure it out or we'll be filling holes forever with expensive alternatives that provide average production. Settling for average in the name of knowing what your getting is a fools errand. Settling for average because you're afraid of youth is a recipe for continued mediocrity.

Yes, the Brewers have to rely on the development of younger players. I should have mentioned Contreras being the younger players category. While we are all excited about him, he is still far from proven. While Turang/Mitchell/Frelick are decent prospects, they are not those can't miss Top 10 guys where the hit rate is pretty high. 

Getting a veteran on a one year deal to help mitigate risk is what smart teams do. If the rookies provide production, you play them. If they fall on their face and need to get sent down, you aren't sunk. I would prefer to not have to watch the Pablo Reyes types if at all possible.

Tell me what World Series winner started 3 rookies in the field, much less 2.

[Thurston Fluff]

Spending $15 million on old, average players is not what smart teams do. It's what teams that don't have to be smart due to unlimited resources do. If teams with limited resources do that they settle for average. Just like the player they just paid will be average.

[wibadgers23]

2 minutes ago, Thurston Fluff said:

Spending $15 million on old, average players is not what smart teams do. It's what teams that don't have to be smart due to unlimited resources do. If teams with limited resources do that they settle for average. Just like the player they just paid will be average.

Yeah I’d rather roll with some of our rookies than sign a guy like Andrew McCutchen again. No thanks.

[Redd Vencher]

8 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

I should have worded that better. Why would anyone want him playing third over Urias? I understand Urias can also play second but we also have a young player ready to make the leap from AAA who can play second. If the reports on his defense are accurate he can probably play it better. This team has to develop young players to compete. That means we have to trust rookies at some point. Spending free agent money on an aging veteran to play a position we have covered doesn't make sens to me. The $15 million that it would have required to get him would get us a lot more relief pitching production than the difference in production of a Urias/Turner vs Urias/Turang combination would.

The offense with Urias and Turner would project to be better than Urias and Turang. Having Turang work his way into the bigs in the Jace Peterson role would still give him regular playing time. We just wouldn't be relying on him as a starter.

[nate82]

2 hours ago, wallus said:

Yes, the Brewers have to rely on the development of younger players. I should have mentioned Contreras being the younger players category. While we are all excited about him, he is still far from proven. While Turang/Mitchell/Frelick are decent prospects, they are not those can't miss Top 10 guys where the hit rate is pretty high. 

Getting a veteran on a one year deal to help mitigate risk is what smart teams do. If the rookies provide production, you play them. If they fall on their face and need to get sent down, you aren't sunk. I would prefer to not have to watch the Pablo Reyes types if at all possible.

Tell me what World Series winner started 3 rookies in the field, much less 2.

You are not really mitigating risk though you are just choosing which risk you believe is less likely to happen.  Basically in your scenario you are stating you prefer the risk of a veteran's performance falling off versus the unknown of a rookie.  I would prefer the unknown as that has a higher chance of getting a positive result than the veteran does. 

Someone like Drury or Anderson I think have the same risk as Turang so I don't see a mitigation there.  Really I don't see many veterans that are available right now who would mitigate the risk of the rookies playing.  Drury and Anderson to me are equally risky as Turang.  In the OF I don't see anyone who would be less riskier than Mitchell, Frelick or Wiemer.  All of them have some kind of warts.  I think it is far more probable that Mitchell outperforms someone like Meyers and Turang equals the production that Drury brings. 

[wallus]

43 minutes ago, nate82 said:

You are not really mitigating risk though you are just choosing which risk you believe is less likely to happen.  Basically in your scenario you are stating you prefer the risk of a veteran's performance falling off versus the unknown of a rookie.  I would prefer the unknown as that has a higher chance of getting a positive result than the veteran does. 

Someone like Drury or Anderson I think have the same risk as Turang so I don't see a mitigation there.  Really I don't see many veterans that are available right now who would mitigate the risk of the rookies playing.  Drury and Anderson to me are equally risky as Turang.  In the OF I don't see anyone who would be less riskier than Mitchell, Frelick or Wiemer.  All of them have some kind of warts.  I think it is far more probable that Mitchell outperforms someone like Meyers and Turang equals the production that Drury brings. 

Look at it another way. Right now you have Turang penciled in as the starter. If he doesn't work out, you have Toro/Hiura/Brosseau as plan B options. If you had signed Turner/Drury, Turang would still get plenty of playing time playing 2nd, SS and probably a little outfield. Turang was moved around quite a bit in the minors so he can be versatile. 

Turner/Drury could also play some 1st if Rowdy stinks and obviously if Winker isn't good he can DH. 

So really you aren't saying that Turner/Drury is better than Turang, you are saying Turner/Drury is better than Toro/Hiura/Brosseau which is likely. 

It's a moot point now that those two have signed but our bench sucks right now and adding a veteran would help.

You stated " I would prefer the unknown as that has a higher chance of getting a positive result than the veteran does." Projections disagree with you.

[monty57]

11 hours ago, wallus said:

Look at it another way. Right now you have Turang penciled in as the starter. If he doesn't work out, you have Toro/Hiura/Brosseau as plan B options. If you had signed Turner/Drury, Turang would still get plenty of playing time playing 2nd, SS and probably a little outfield. Turang was moved around quite a bit in the minors so he can be versatile. 

Turner/Drury could also play some 1st if Rowdy stinks and obviously if Winker isn't good he can DH. 

So really you aren't saying that Turner/Drury is better than Turang, you are saying Turner/Drury is better than Toro/Hiura/Brosseau which is likely. 

It's a moot point now that those two have signed but our bench sucks right now and adding a veteran would help.

You stated " I would prefer the unknown as that has a higher chance of getting a positive result than the veteran does." Projections disagree with you.

Two thing on this. First, define “plenty of playing time.” I’m fine with guys like Jace Peterson sitting on the bench until they prove they deserve to get in the lineup. I’d prefer not doing that to our top infield prospect. If he’s not starting at the MLB level, I’d rather he start out playing everyday in AAA until someone gets hurt. 
 

Second, projections are not predictions. A projection just takes what a player has done and tries to project a statistically probable line for the coming season. That would not “disagree” with the quoted text. Depending on the players in question, there could be more variance from either the prospect or the veteran. Anderson was a quality MLB player who has had some down years, while Drury has been a so-so MLB player who had a hot first half last year, leading to him being targeted at the trade deadline. Turang is a “bat to ball”, slick-fielding prospect. 
 

I honestly don’t know which of those players will perform best in ‘22. We have Turang at league minimum, and it would cost around $17M over two years for the others (one is already gone).

We could very easily get into another “McCutchen situation” where we continue to play the inferior player just because he’s a veteran and we spent a (relatively) lot of money to acquire him. Just because playing McCutchen the way we did last year potentially cost us a playoff spot doesn’t mean that acquiring Anderson would do the same, but it is a possibility. Just because a guy’s a veteran and costs more doesn’t mean he’s a better solution than the young, inexpensive guy you already have. 
 

Finally, let’s forget Turang for a second. Toro isn’t far off from being in the “top prospect” category himself, and Miller is an average-ish bench player. Why is Anderson naturally a better option than either of these guys? He was solid, but hasn’t been for a few years. Is it worth $15-20M over two years to see if he can regain lost glory? Why not just see if Toro can live up to his potential?

Any “sure thing” upgrades are going to cost $20M+ per year. You’re not going to find certainty in the bargain bins the Brewers are forced to shop in.