New Power 50, 8/7, Farm Hops on homepage

[bretsky07]

how does Brantley compare to Brady Clark? your description sounds similar.

[DrWood]

Brantley has sure been an effective basestealer for someone who doesn't have much speed, and gwynn never walked very much in the minors. I think brantley strikes out less, too. I do agree that Ford might have a higher ceiling, but might never approach it with his SO.

 

I think Brantley could have a .340 OBP in the majors today.

[BillScottCanRake]

Nice job with July Farm Hops pogo!

[pogokat]

Thanks...I hope i didnt make it too much of an opinion piece this mon th...

[Team Canada]

I hope i didnt make it too much of an opinion piece this month

 

Even so, you had to talk about it, and it's not an outrageous opinion anyway, especially from the viewpoint of looking at the farm system.

 

 

Joe is no prospect---he's 32 years old. But it says quite a bit about the man that the Brewers were willing to bring him up over 100 guys younger than him when Rickie Weeks went down.

 

Thought this was a bit of a non sequitur, since the fact that there are 100 younger players has little to do with which ones are possible options to contribute right now.

 

To pose a question, what would the team be like now if Melvin had traded Carlos Villanueva and Yovani Gallardo for Bob Wickman in 2005?

 

Ouch. You know what would really suck (pardon the doomsday glasses)? If we traded Inman, Thatcher, and Garrison to finish in 2nd place.

 

 

Rickie could have easily just ridden pine, or hit the dl for another month.

To be honest, I don't see how this was an option at all. Going on the DL is one thing, but if he's able to play, sitting the bench for 2 months does him zero benefit. He needs to play every day, whether that's here or Nashville, and if it breaks friends up, so be it.

[colbyjack]

Pogo, nice job all around. I enjoyed you sharing your own opinion of the recent happenings on the farm.

 

Pertaining to the organization having a sudden change in philosophy, I can't say I agree with that. One trade doesn't change everything immediately. The organization will continue to emphasize the importance of adding talent from within (at least they better, because they'll have to), from the bottom up, and Melvin has stated a few times in the past year that he may start to move some prospects for pieces to help propel the team to the promised land.

 

Now, I agree that he seemed to give up a lot to get Linebrink, and that shock from the trade still hasn't wore off, especially since one of the pitchers (Thatcher) might have helpled the team just as much as Linebrink wil, and another (Inman) seemed to be poised to take over a spot in the rotation within the next 1-2 years, which will be right when the team is likely to lose Capuano and/or Sheets.

 

Plus, I have mentioned several times over the years that a successful ballclub not only uses their farm system to develop their own big-leaguers, but to also use those resources to trade for proven commodities when the time is right. You can argue that the time wasn't right or that he gave up too much, but he clearly was making a move in an attempt to improve the team to the point that the playoffs seemed more likely for the big-league club, which of course is the ultimate goal for any GM.

 

In addition, Melvin did state that a big reason he got Linebrink, or at least a reason that made it more appealing, was that he projects to be a Type A FA this offseason, openly stating that the value of early draft picks was big enough to make such a deal happen. The Oakland A's have made similar deals in the past, constantly recycling their prospects, if you will, via compensatory draft picks to bolster the big-league squad, even if those bolstering efforts are clearly temporary.

[Trowekamp]

My thoughts on the prospects chances of big league success:

 

1. Yo Gallardo

2. Manny Parra

3. Carlos Villanueva

4. Jeremy Jeffress

5. Will Inman

6. Mark Rogers

7. Zach Braddock

 

Now not everybody is Power 50 eligible but I considered everybody with Rookie Status and below and factored in big league stuff, current level, etc...

 

after Braddock it is pick them in my opinion so basically to me the traded Inman for Linebrink since Parra is the lefty out of the pen I was touting Thatcher for since the beginning of the year. I can't see the criticism of trading your 5th best pitching prospects (especially when the top 3 are already performing well in the majors). I have loved Inman since he started lighting up the minors. Mostly for how he went about it. But the thing that seemed to happen when he did give up a run was it was via HR. Then when he hit AA they seemed to come 2 - 3 times a game. So I still hope he makes the majors and is successful but am concerned about the longball.

 

The difference with the Reds GM is he traded young talent already in the majors so to make a valid comparison it would be like trading Weeks-Hart for Linebrink.

 

With that said I welcomed well thought out, articulate opinions on the Farm Hops even if I didn't agree.

[BillScottCanRake]

In addition, Melvin did state that a big reason he got Linebrink, or at least a reason that made it more appealing, was that he projects to be a Type A FA this offseason, openly stating that the value of early draft picks was big enough to make such a deal happen. The Oakland A's have made similar deals in the past, constantly recycling their prospects, if you will, via compensatory draft picks to bolster the big-league squad, even if those bolstering efforts are clearly temporary.

 

I will admit to being incredibly torn about this sort of philosophy. While the draft picks a Type A free agent could bring are nice, I think am troubled by two things in this particular trade:

 

1. The Brewers accepted getting a lesser player (Linebrink instead of someone like Gagne) in return for draft picks if he leaves. To some degree, that defeats the purpose of trading a piece of the future to improve now.

 

2. While getting the draft picks is nice, and while the futures of Inman, Thatcher and Garrison are far from certain, the future of those two draft picks is even more uncertain.

 

I understand why Melvin made the move, because you can't take your eye completely off the future. If Linebrink helps this year and brings picks, he could be the player who "keeps on giving." That said, I think I would have liked an Inman-for-Gagne more because it helps this years team more, even if the trade wouldn't have resulted in draft picks. If Linebrink doesn't help the team, it's like trading a prospect for draft choices.

[colbyjack]

I can't really argue with your points Chris, but I brought that up to point out that Melvin still places a big priority on player development. Draft picks may be a heck of a lot more uncertain than relatively established prospects, but again, extra early draft picks add more talent to a system that has suddenly graduated and traded away a significant amount of talent.

[TheCrew07]

Dang Pogo, where were you when I was arguing the prospects for rentals on the trade forum! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[splitterpfj]

Chris, your outlook is a bit more harsh than my own in this case, but that was well-written. Trading prospects is playing with fire, but at times, so is not trading prospects. I hope we never look back on a trade and see that Wickman scenario you presented. Thanks for your effort on this.

[BillScottCanRake]

I can't really argue with your points Chris, but I brought that up to point out that Melvin still places a big priority on player development. Draft picks may be a heck of a lot more uncertain than relatively established prospects, but again, extra early draft picks add more talent to a system that has suddenly graduated and traded away a significant amount of talent.

 

Yeah, I understand why Melvin thinks why those extra picks are an important consideration, and I hope I didn't appear to downplay them too much. This team is always going to need to draft well, either to build from within or use prospects to add talent from outside the organization. Two extra top 80 picks should make the 2008 draft class a potential monster. Like most things, this trade was a compromise on a number of different levels, probably on levels that I haven't even considered. Which is why Melvin is GM of a first place team and I'm not.

 

I guess I'd probably would be more OK with it if I were more OK with Linebrink. The way it looks now is they traded three prospects for two months of a good but not great reliever and two picks. If Linebrink is better than I expect, I'll be able to look back with more fondness for the trade.

Chris, your outlook is a bit more harsh than my own in this case, but that was well-written. Trading prospects is playing with fire, but at times, so is not trading prospects. I hope we never look back on a trade and see that Wickman scenario you presented. Thanks for your effort on this.

 

Did it come off as harsh? I hope it didn't, because that wasn't my intention, but rather to show that Melvin really did take a risk in making this move and express some concern over the probability it will help the team this year. I like Linebrink as an additional 7th or 8th inning guy, more so than an improvement over the guys currently getting those innings (Turnbow, Villy and Wise). If that is the case, I think that's a high price to pay.

 

I suppose we probably should limit the discussion here to prospects, as I have already kinda turned this into a thread about the trade, which I didn't mean to do. But if anyone is interested, I did write an article on the trade. If anyone is interested we could start another thread more about the trade as opposed to the state of the system.

 

I will say this in closing... it's way more fun having this discussion when the Brewers are winning than it would have been three or four years ago.

[pogokat]

The thing that bugged me about this trade is that even with the draft picks, the farm system is considerably weaked in a time when they are ready to compete...

 

so, inman and thatcher were ready to help, and garrison was probably just a season and a half behind...but those draft picks...even if they move ridiculously fast...will be years behind...sure, the team needs the prospects in the future as much as now, but it has delayed the payoff from the draft picks...

 

the brewers are not going to be able to keep all of these young players...and they'll start paying arbitration to all of them soon...i think it would have been more beneficial to have those young, cheap players in 2008 and 2009, than 2010 and 2011...

 

anyway,

[tyguy20204]

Pogo, in the article, you say that the farm system is "substantially weakened" after this trade. I'm sorry, but if the loss of Inman wreaks that much havoc on the system, then the system wasn't that strong to begin with. The reality is, the Brewers only gave up one "top-tier" prospect in this transaction, and I'm being generous in using that designation. While Inman has constantly wowed us with his pitching lines, his statistical success has always been shadowed by the skepticism of scouts. Whether you disagree or not with this skepticism, you have to admit that Inman is hardly a surefire prospect.

 

Never mind whether or not Inman becomes a quality MLB pitcher - In evaluating this trade, you are incredibly overvaluing Thatcher and Garrison. Yes, Thatcher looks like he'll be able to pitch in the majors at some point. However, at this point he's unproven. Could he be counted on in the 2007 pennant race? No. And does his loss weaken the Brewers club in the years of 2008 and beyond? No.

 

Finally, there is Steve Garrison, who while young, by his own admission doesn't have the stuff to blow away hitters. He is young, and he's lefty, so he has potential, but while many crafty lefties will find solid MLB careers, many will not.

 

So my first argument is that you are overvaluing these prospects. This argument is exemplified in your comparison of this deal with Cincinatti's deal with Washington. When that deal was transacted, Kearns had already shown the ability to put up 800+ OPS seasons, when healthy. Lopez had put up an 800+ OPS the season before. Both of these players were quality MLB players at the time. To compare these two players with Inman and co. is folly.

 

Do I think this trade signals a shift in philosophy? No, not at all. Melvin has repeatedly said over the years that prospects will be dealt if the right deal comes along - a deal that helps the MLB club to make the playoffs. That's what he's done here. This doesn't mean that prospects are no longer valued. Melvin said that the deal would not have been completed without the knowledge that Linebrink was a Type A free agent.

 

As mentioned by other posters, the success of the Brewers and an eventual playoff berth can only mean an influx of additional revenue, revenue which will in part go to player development costs. Why should anyone doubt this? Mark A. has shown no reluctance to spending money in the draft, or to signing international players.

 

Finally, as for your concern about the Brewers lacking a "wave" of prospects ready to hit in the next few years, I think it's understandable, but also a little overwrought. As I've already said, the loss of these three prospects can hardly be said to have destroyed the next wave of prospects. The Brewers system had already been thin towards the top, and the reason is because they've recently graduated so many prospects to the MLB team.

[biedergb]

While I was not a big fan of the trade -- it was more due to the fact that I was not a huge fan of acquiring Linebrink. For as far as the trade I see the trade as Linebrink for a prospect (Inman) and a possible MLB ready bullpen arm (Thatcher). Garrison was maybe too much, but that's being nit-picky. I was upset to see Inman go, as I like his moxie, but we did have a lot of potential starting pitchers with the club, and Jeffress is clearly a better prospect.

 

As far the the "change in philosophy" approach, I don't see that so much. Last year we added Nelson Cruz to the Cordero-Lee trade, and many thought we had overpaid by sending our best MLB OF and best minor league OF (Cruz). Obviously many (myself included) overvalued Cruz. We also dealt a pitcher with no place on our staff (de la Rosa) for Graffy when Weeks went down.

 

Finally, the comparison to trading Gallardo and Braun in 2005 is not an even comparison. The equivalent of that would have been a package of Jeffress and Salome (or LaPorta).

[pogokat]

while there have been some doubts voiced about inman in the last month, there weren't prior to that...he was the #3 prospect in Basball america entering the season...new top prospect Manny parra was 18...so i think there is some revisionism going on when people say that will wasn't a bonafide top prospect...he definitely was...

 

and i agree with you to some degree about thatcher and garrison...i've never actually been much of a fan of garrison..he doesnt throw that hard and he doesnt strike a bunch of people out...i just thought this was a very weird trade for the brewers..

 

and as for melvin's comments, of course he has said that...but prior to now, he had not acted on them...he also hadnt dumped a ton of money into a league average pitcher in suppan or brought in junk like counsell

 

i guess it boils down to this:

 

I look at the young guys that the brewers drafted and traded for as prospects and i see the backbone of this team...fielder, hardy, braun, yo, villy, parra, hall, sheets, and hart...those are the guys that have made this a playoff caliber team...

 

of the guys that have been brought in as vwets, only coc has made a huge difference on this team...

 

so, i really think that the change in action---bringing in vets from outside the organization---what i view as a change in philosophy---has not helped the team

 

in fact, i think it has weakened the team...and i think it will continue to weaken the team as more trades are made..

 

the reason i picked this trade as a talking point is because this is the point where we finally traded top prospects away...

 

I understand fully why a lot of you guys disagree with me...and i understand that Melvin has said he was going to do this...but i also don't see the team as improved...and i'm not so sure this team will make the playoffs...so it really burns when they gave up young players...

 

ok, as for the comp picks, great...but you are just delaying the arrival of internal help even longer...and of cours,e inman may amount to nothing...

 

but what if this isnt the year? then what>?

 

and how has this deal made the team better next year?

 

i really like doug melvin...but he's made some moves that i dont like over the last year...and i think this most recent one burns the most because i think it weakened the team next year and the year after...

 

anyway, glad to have a discussion on this matter...

 

yea, melvin may have said he was going to start doing this when the team got competetive, but i don't think it has improved the team

[pogokat]

the comparison was villy and yo, not yo and braun...

 

and it was probably off because Yo and Villy were never ranked that high...yo peaked at #1 this year, a position that will inman would certainly have been placed at in next year's book...

 

yo just wasnt viewed as a "top" prospect by the media until last season...much like things have been with inman

[foamboy1]

Thanks...I hope i didnt make it too much of an opinion piece this mon th...

 

Well...it did contain a great deal of opinion...but that's why I liked it so much. It was provocative and made us think, regardless of how we viewed the trade. I don't like the trade one bit.

[obobo55]

while there have been some doubts voiced about inman in the last month, there weren't prior to that...he was the #3 prospect in Basball america entering the season...new top prospect Manny parra was 18...so i think there is some revisionism going on when people say that will wasn't a bonafide top prospect...he definitely was...

I just don't get excited about anyone pitching in A-ball anymore. That goes for Yo, Inman, Jeffress, Rogers...any of them. There seems to be such a huge difference between A & AA, where pitchers can get away with 1 pitch on the lower level but it gets exposed at the next. Given that Will had some questions about his velocity, while I was intrigued--I would not be sold until he performed in Huntsville. He had mixed results there and perhaps he will find his way, but for any of you that were counting on him taking a spot in the rotation (in '09), IMO you were WAYYYYYYYYY premature.

 

At the same time, I was underwhelmed by the return. A 2-month rental can only yield so much. For a somewhat struggling middle reliever it seemed quite pricey. So, I understand why this provokes many of the close followers of the organization to be perplexed.

 

The way I see it is Melvin diagnosed the major league teams biggest need and found a solution for a price he was willing to pay. If Inman becomes even a competent ML starter it was probably too high a cost to pay given what average SP cost in FA. I'm betting the team's scouts thought he wouldn't get that far.

 

What really is driving this IMO is that the upper levels now seem devoid of an impact player. Well that is partly by design. By taking Braun and Weeks and moving them through the system in a "surge" to coincide with Hardy, Fielder, and Hart there was destined to be a eddy in its wake. Personally I still like Lou, Heether, Hurricane, Crabbe and others to be capable players in the majors eventually. They may not have the impact of the guys we have just received, but they can step in and fill the spots of the older vets adequately. If our "stars" are as good as we expect there are not many spots to fill immediately anyways.

 

I like the deal in the end as I think the 'brink will help a lot down the stretch. Whether it was worth what we gave up is entirely uncertain which makes it a decent deal for both teams. I think we may have become too used to Melvin pulling off miracleshttp://static.yuku.com/v2//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif

[biedergb]

"The comparison was villy and yo, not yo and braun... "

 

Woops. Sorry about that.

[colbyjack]

The new Power 50 has been released and is available for your reading pleasure. Debate away...

[pogokat]

great work patrick....i honestly didn't realize we didn't have derek miller on the list at all last month...

 

the new format is definitely providing some pretty wild swings, but i think it's a good way to relate our emotions on the matter

[gregmag]

Excellent job, Patrick. I'm glad you guys are willing to move people a little more aggressively; I think that's appropriate, with the system in flux and a lot of the system's prospect value at the lower levels.

 

I was really surprised that Derek Miller wasn't on the list, so I'm glad to see him back.

 

So here's my token challenge question for this month: Brendan Katin is only a month younger than Brad Nelson. Katin is playing one level lower, albeit in a tougher hitting environment for the level; Nelson seems to be having a better year, although they're certainly similar types of players. Why is Katin 12 places higher on the P50? We've had a couple of discussions of Nelson in threads, and certainly his impending free agent status makes him less likely to help out in Milwaukee, but does that enter into the P50 rankings? Or are you assuming, despite Nelson's raw edge in age/level, that Katin has more potential because Nelson is repeating AAA?

 

Greg.

[Mass Haas]

We've had a couple of discussions of Nelson in threads, and certainly his impending free agent status makes him less likely to help out in Milwaukee, but does that enter into the P50 rankings?

 

Bingo.

[pogokat]

in the link report, there was a quote where brad nelson said he was excited about playing 3b because it will help his status as an upcoming free agent...i'm pretty sure brad is gone...so his prospect status is questionable