Scott Linebrink trade revisted

[Thurston Fluff]

Linebrink was the second best RP in our bullpen after the trade, too bad Yost mostly wasted him.

 

8.9 K/9 and a mid 3.00 ERA(was running right around 3.00 before his last outing) with that defense behind him is decent. If we had used him in the setup role instead of Turnbow he very well may have been the guy who pushed over the top and gave us a playoff spot. But instead Yost misused him and let guys like Aquino face key situations instead.

 

Thatcher was decent but hardly dominating especially given the park he was in, when his BABIP jumps back up to .287 or so instead of .217 and his HR rate climbs to a more normal level he'll start to give up plenty of runs.

 

Inman still showed control problems in AA with 4.17 BB/9. I still say he's in AA to start next year and will spend another year in AAA so lets visit this in 2009 when he's actually sniffing the majors.

 

I didn't have a problem with the trade when we made it and I don't have a problem with it in hindsight either. Linebrink pitched well for us but it wasn't enough to make a playoff run.

 

For the most part I agree but he did have a pretty high BAA at .276. I'm not as good at stats as you are but I'm not a fan of relievers who give up base hits since par tof their job is to come to stop rallies.

It's nice to look at Thatcher and say wow we could have had better production without losing anyone but that doesn't take into account the Brewers brutal defense or one of the most pitcher friendly parks in the league. I do think Melvin didn't get what he wanted with the trade since he wanted a top level setup man and didn't get that. But if we resigned him to Turnbow type money he'd be a better deal than T-bow was.

[sweepscc]

One thing you have to take into account is Linebrink is on the downslide. Do you really want to give him a 2 or 3 year contract? Hits up, SO's down.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Linebrink's HR/9 rate doubled from 05 to 06, and then climbed even further this year. His K/9 was way off his established norms for SD this year, and although he managed to fan a batter an inning for the Brewers, his control suffered as a result. He walked nearly the same amount of hitters (11 vs 14) in just over half the innings (25 here, 45 in SD). I thought he was finished as an elite reliever before the trade, and I've seen nothing to disconfirm that suspicion. We got what we should have expected -- 25 innings of average relief work from a pitcher who is now an average reliever.

Thing is, there was little reason to believe we couldn't have gotten that from Thatcher. He was always old for his leagues, but his career minor league numbers are mind-blowing (11.7 K/9, 2.2 BB/9, 0.33 HR/9. ERA is 1.73). I wasn't the least surprised at Thatcher's success in San Diego. I don't really think they were either, given that they called him up immediately after the trade.

Look, generally speaking, most win-now trades are going to be stupid. They seldom make a difference in a pennant race. Unless you go the Cards' route and pick up somebody like Rolen (really good, and you fully expect to resign him), win-now trades therefore amount to giving away some portion of your club's future for nothing more than the mainstream media shutting up about how you didn't do anything to improve the team. And if you still don't win the thing, they're still going to complain!

I, for one, don't think you're ever going to find a dumber win-now trade than one for a middle reliever. Fungible! They're fungible, dagnabbit! If your bullpen is struggling, call up a never-ending succession of AAA vets until you find someone that gets people out. Doesn't matter if they were starting or relieving in AAA. Heck, I'd give my strong-armed, light-hitting AAA catcher a chance before I would trade genuine grade-A prospects (6 years of cheap quality production when they pan out. Nothing is more valuable to a small or mid-market team) for 2 months of a middle reliever.

I hope they offer Linebrink arb and I hope he walks. I hope he winds up a class A and signs with a good team so the Brewers get a late first and a sandwich pick instead of a sandwich pick and an early second (What's this about 2 firsts? No free agent brings his club 2 firsts.). I hope that at least one of those two picks is a fast-track college player who gets to the big leagues nearly as quickly (before the mass exodus of our young players begins) and has something approaching the success as I think Inman will (barring injury, a lot). Otherwise, I think this trade is already a mistake and may well turn into an unmitigated disaster. In any event, I view it as an ill-portent for Doug Melvin's future now that the Brewers have clearly switched to a win-now mode. He was brilliant at building this team into a contender, but this is his first real move now that the team has arrived.

Nevermind Inman and Garrison, how much would I give to be able to pencil Thatcher's name (for the major league minimum) into the next two bullpens the Brewers assemble?

[MNBrew]

I think part of that might have been that the trade came as a shock to him.

 

He was having a subpar season even before he was traded.

What I recall is that it was especially just the month prior to the trade that hadn't gone very well for Linebrink. I thought I remembered hearing that he'd still done pretty well the first half of the season.

 

[Ennder]

For the most part I agree but he did have a pretty high BAA at .276.

 

BAA is one of the most luck driven stats in baseball so its hard to get much of a read on it over such a small sample, its much easier to look at trends in K/9 which largely drive BAA.

[mikemercury]

In the overall grand scheme things when it's all said and done, 6 years of Thatcher, and the trading chips of Inman and Garrison is obviously better then a 25 innings of Linebrink (and the inside track on resigning him) and 1-2 draft picks. However after 25 years of no playoffs and almost 15 years without a winning season I'm more then eager to pull the trigger on that deal if it increases our chances of getting us to the post season. Our biggest weakspot going into September 1st was the bullpen, the Linebrink and later Ray King for a bag of balls helped fill the hole. Do the Brewers even win 83 games if they stand pat?

This trade tells us a couple of things. It shows the fans (all 2.8+ million) that we're trying to win and shows other teams players (like the upcomming free agents) we want to win. It's been widely speculated that we might try to acquire next year's closer this year. Perhaps it's Linebrink, loosing CoCo will sting, but it sure will sting a lot less if we have Linebrink back. If we can't bring Linebrink back I'm more then happy with the decision to make a push this year, our push was a little short, but we did not cripple our '09 or '10 teams for taste of forbidden fruit this year.

 

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

but we did not cripple our '09 or '10 teams for taste of forbidden fruit this year.

 

Agreed, as it would take a heckuva lot more than that to cripple what should be excellent teams the next three years running. However, I don't really feel like that is a sensible standard to use when evaluating a trade. They could've traded Braun for King and I don't think those teams would have been crippled (not exactly anyway). But they almost certainly wouldn't be as good.

 

Do the Brewers even win 83 games if they stand pat?

 

If they had just called up Thatcher instead of making this trade, I think so. It's a useful counterfactual as a thought experiment, but (as is always the case) it's not really possible to prove one way or the other. This is an issue on which I think sensible people can disagree, and I recognize I am unusually strongly disposed against win-now trades. If I thought they worked as intended (i.e. helped a team win a pennant race that otherwise wouldn't have) more than once every, oh I dunno, say maybe 10 years or so (across all of MLB), I might feel differently. But every contending team does it, or at least tries to, so what can I really do about it other than sigh heavily and write critical posts on a fansite? Oh, and hope that next year, some other GM makes an even dumber offer than Melvin for next year's Scott Linebrink, or Eric Gagne, or (reaching back a bit further) Larry Anderson.

[lumberrule]

Doug Melvin was in a no-win situation with this trade, especially now since the Brewers didn't make the playoffs. Since they didn't, its "they gave away a couple of good arms for a few innings of Linebrink."

 

If Doug doesn't make this trade and the Brewers didnt make the playoffs, its something like this: "Typical Brewers...standing pat when there are trades available out there."

 

If people want to call this trade a "bust" because we didn't make the playoffs and Joe Thatcher threw three good weeks of baseball out of the Padres' bullpen, thats just outright silly. With Turnbow imploding, the starting pitching not getting the job done, and the middle relief of this team completely sucking, Melvin had no choice but to make this deal.

 

If people here are willing to offer Ben Sheets a multi-year contract this winter when he's given this team not much more than frustration and medical bills since 2004, why can't Linebrink be brought back? He'll be more reliable than Turnbow, is better than any reliever on the club not named Cordero was in '07 and will be as good or better than most FA relievers out there.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

If people want to call this trade a "bust" because we didn't make the playoffs and Joe Thatcher threw three good weeks of baseball out of the Padres' bullpen, thats just outright silly. With Turnbow imploding, the starting pitching not getting the job done, and the middle relief of this team completely sucking, Melvin had no choice but to make this deal.

 

He had plenty of other choices. He could've attempted to get Linebrink without including the team's best prospect and most ML-ready minor league reliever. If the Pads wouldn't budge, he could've said "to heck with Linebrink, I'll go talk to other teams that recognize that average middle relievers in contract years aren't worth beans" and called up Thatcher in the meantime. I won't speak for others, but I'm not arguing that this trade is a bust because we didn't make the playoffs, and I'm not arguing that Thatcher is good on the basis of 2 months worth of work for the Padres. My basic arguments would be these:

 

1) Linebrink, predictably, was not that special, nor that important to our chances down the stretch. His performance record the last two seasons clearly signalled a downturn, but Melvin chose to believe his scouts' reports that Linebrink was still an elite relief pitcher.

 

2) Even if Linebrink had been as good down the stretch as he was prior to last year, I doubt it would've made much of difference in the Brewers' final record. "Elite Linebrink" wouldn't have made the Brewers 2 games better than "Average Linebrink" did. Given the history of such trades in MLB, this was also fairly predictable. Even in the highest leverage innings (which actually mostly went to Turnbow), it is very difficult to perform at a level that makes even 1-2 games difference above what an average reliever would contribute if all you've got is a couple months time, so acquiring relief pitching at the trade deadline seldom has much of an affect on a team's playoff chances.

 

3) There was every reason to believe, based on Thatcher's minor league performance, that he could be as good as "Average Linebrink" the rest of the way. That he was actually significantly better supports this argument, but I don't think it's fair to say that Melvin should've known Thatcher would be that good, nor do I think we can definitively say that Thatcher would have been that good for the Brewers had they kept him (impossible to know). What I do know is that, considering both performance and cost, I'd certainly prefer to have Thatcher on my team going forward (as I think most would).

 

4) Considering 1-3, I think a pretty good argument can be made that the trade would've been a bust (for this season) if it had been just Linebrink for Thatcher. For the long term, I really really like Inman's chances of being an effective pitcher in the bigs and fairly soon at that. I think he'll be up by the end of next season. Garrison is further off, but has been impressive so far. My position on this trade will soften (but just a little) if everything breaks right and the Brewers get a 1st and a sandwich pick as compensation when Linebrink leaves and pitches his way out of the bigs for someone else the next few seasons, and will soften further if they actually manage to turn those picks into players that help during this contention cycle. But a lot can go wrong with that scenario. If something does, as I said earlier, I think this trade looks like an unmitigated disaster.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

BTW, sorry all for the long-winded exasperation. I wasn't posting on the site yet when the trade was made (just lurking), so I really haven't had the chance prior to this thread to make my feelings clearly known. This summer, this trade taught me how much I'm going to hate "win-now" mode. I sometimes wonder whether I wouldn't be happier if the Brewers just replaced Melvin with an inanimate carbon rod (really ANY GM is going to do the same dumb stuff) and coasted on what they've got until it's time to re-sign, trade, or lose the kids.

[lumberrule]

He had plenty of other choices.

 

How do you know that? I love the argument that basically says there were different or better options out there, with no evidence to back that up. The trade deadline for relief pitching was AWFULLY quiet this year. The Brewers weren't the only team looking for bullpen help, and there wasnt weren't exactly trade after trade burning up the wire at the end of July. Please let me know some of these awesome options that were available to Milwaukee. Im sure Doug Melvin would like to hear them too.

 

Joe Thatcher found some success right away for San Diego. Good for him. But I'm certainly not ready to proclaim him a top - or even mediocre - setup guy after 78 opponent at-bats. Its totally obsurd.

 

1) Linebrink, predictably, was not that special, nor that important to our chances down the stretch. His performance record the last two seasons clearly signalled a downturn, but Melvin chose to believe his scouts' reports that Linebrink was still an elite relief pitcher.

 

Bullpen guys arent supposed to be "special", especially middle relievers. Seriously, name me one "special" middle reliever. Any relievers who turn out to be "special" either get converted to starters to become closers.

 

And as far as not being important down the stretch...if Linebrink isnt on this team, this team doesnt finish .500. Likewise, Melvin's scouts have churned out a heck of a lot more productive players than unproductive.

 

Will Inman is still in AA, and really isn't setting the earth on fire. Garrison is also still a ways off. To call this trade "an unmitigated disaster" as you put it, at this point in time, is borderline nuts.

[TooLiveBrew]

Bullpen guys arent supposed to be "special", especially middle relievers. Seriously, name me one "special" middle reliever. Any relievers who turn out to be "special" either get converted to starters to become closers.

 

So you pose a question, but then eliminate nearly any potential answers so your point can't be refuted? There are plenty of examples to answer your question, but since you place an odd conditional on what the answer is "allowed" to be, of course there aren't many choices. Why not try to be a little objective here?

[lumberrule]

So you pose a question, but then eliminate nearly any potential answers so your point can't be refuted? There are plenty of examples to answer your question, but since you place an odd conditional on what the answer is "allowed" to be, of course there aren't many choices. Why not try to be a little objective here?

 

I didnt eliminate any potential answers, I was just merely stating a fact...pitchers that are good or "special" middle relievers don't stay middle relievers very long.

 

If there are plenty of examples, then name them. My purpose isn't to be "objective", Im not a journalist. Im stating my opinion.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Please let me know some of these awesome options that were available to Milwaukee. Im sure Doug Melvin would like to hear them too.

I thought I did already.

1) Play hard to get, maybe get Linebrink for less.
2) Do nothing. Call up Thatcher.
3) Settle for some other average middle reliever that plays for a team whose GM knows that average middle relievers "aren't worth beans" (in my original language).

Ideally, I'd have gone with #2. These trades almost always work out terribly. The other two noteworthy trade deadline relief pitcher moves were Boston's for Gagne (boy he pitched well) and Atlanta's for Dotel (boy he pitched at all). Arguably, these were worse trades, but I don't put any of the players either team gave up in those deals in Inman's class as a prospect.

To call this trade "an unmitigated disaster" as you put it, at this point in time, is borderline nuts.

I didn't. I said it was, at this point in time, a bust. If they don't get any more value out of this deal (which I can't see happening by retaining Linebrink, who is in my opinion likely to just get worse from here on in. So you're just left with the draft picks as a possibility), and Inman turns out to be as good as I think he's going to be, then it'll be an unmitigated disaster.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

Nevermind Inman and Garrison, how much would I give to be able to pencil Thatcher's name (for the major league minimum) into the next two bullpens the Brewers assemble?

Exactly. If Thatcher was better than Linebrink down the stretch and that's the only thing we got Linebrink for...the trade was a bust. Even if Inman and Garrison go nowhere. Otherwise you need to make the leap that whatever compensatory pick we get will be better than Inman, Garrison and Thatcher. Could happen...but that's a stretch isn't it.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

I also wouldn't disagree with your point about middle relievers not being "special". That's what the whole "Fungible!" rant was supposed to indicate.

 

But ask yourself this: if no "special" pitchers remain middle relievers, why was it so important for the Brewers to add a "proven veteran" reliever to stabilize the bullpen when, by definition, the reliever acquired would be someone too lousy to start or close in the big leagues?

[pogokat]

I'm with you Brawndo...

 

it's not that Linebrink was an overwhelming disaster

 

it's not that thatcher/garrison/inman were the team's best prospects (or maybe they were...at leats close...)

 

it's not that the deal killed the franchise

 

it's that the deal had a very low chance for helping the team make the playoffs...and signalled stupidity...whether or not you think doug melvin is the only guy out there who would pull a trade like this or not (he certainly isn't), i think the whole deadline deal helping a team a great deal is a fallacy...

 

and as i think brawndo is putting it, it's especially problematic when that last second trade is for middle relief...

 

would the team have been any better/worse if they had just thrown thatch/garrison/inman into the fray?

[TooLiveBrew]

lumberrule - if you want a realistic opinion, it should be grounded in objectivity. I'm not a journalist either, but that's mo.

 

Carlos Marmol (ChC)

Joba Chamberlain (NYY)

Rafael Betancourt (Cle)

Heath Bell (SD)

Bobby Seay (Det)

Jonathon Broxton (LAD)

Joaquin Benoit (Tex)

Bob Howry (ChC)

Aaron Heilman (NYM)

Justin Speier (Tor)

Rafael Soriano (Atl) - yes, closed, but vast majority of 2007 as MR

George Sherrill (Sea)

Pat Neshek (Min) - Madison, WI native

Rafael Perez (Cle)

 

I'm sure some names could be added or subtracted, but that's a relatively substantial list.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

I don't think the team would have been any worse off. Whether that would've been the best move for the kids (Inman and Garrison) is harder to say.

[danzig6767]

lumberrule wrote

---

 

Bullpen guys arent supposed to be "special", especially middle relievers. Seriously, name me one "special" middle reliever. Any relievers who turn out to be "special" either get converted to starters to become closers.

Carlos Marmol

 

He was as important as any Cubs player the last month or two in getting them to the playoffs.Pinella used Marmol as his designated fire stopper and didn't ties his own hands by only using Marmol in a set inning.When a Cubs pitcher put a runner or two on from the 6th inning on,Lou brought in Marmol to prevent damage and in nearly every case,it worked.

Marmol wasn't put in some contrived role where he had to be the 8th inning setup man and he ended up being the key piece in their bullpen by far.If the Cubs are smart,they will keep him in the same role next year instead of locking the kid into a 8th or 9th inning role.

 

Edit: Un-bolded the main text. - Toby

[logan82]

Carlos Marmol

 

He was as important as any Cubs player the last month or two in getting them to the playoffs.Pinella used Marmol as his designated fire stopper and didn't ties his own hands by only using Marmol in a set inning.When a Cubs pitcher put a runner or two on from the 6th inning on,Lou brought in Marmol to prevent damage and in nearly every case,it worked.

 

Marmol wasn't put in some contrived role where he had to be the 8th inning setup man and he ended up being the key piece in their bullpen by far.If the Cubs are smart,they will keep him in the same role next year instead of locking the kid into a 8th or 9th inning role.

This was the role that Villanueva filled for us early in the year. We have nobody of Marmol's caliber on our team, except Cordero. Marmol was a young player who was easily passed over for an established veteran in the closer's role. Given his performance I wouldn't be surprised to see him as a closer in the near future. I doubt that it would have been a good idea to use any of our relievers outside of Shouse and Cordero in the role you described for Marmol.

Edit: If Capellan had come in this year and pitched at least like he did last year, he would have filled in that Marmol type roll for us. To me that is the most important guy in the pen. I still stick with Villanueva for my MPV for this reason.

[danzig6767]

Carlos Marmol

 

He was as important as any Cubs player the last month or two in getting them to the playoffs.Pinella used Marmol as his designated fire stopper and didn't ties his own hands by only using Marmol in a set inning.When a Cubs pitcher put a runner or two on from the 6th inning on,Lou brought in Marmol to prevent damage and in nearly every case,it worked.

 

Marmol wasn't put in some contrived role where he had to be the 8th inning setup man and he ended up being the key piece in their bullpen by far.If the Cubs are smart,they will keep him in the same role next year instead of locking the kid into a 8th or 9th inning role.

This was the role that Villanueva filled for us early in the year. We have nobody of Marmol's caliber on our team, except Cordero. Marmol was a young player who was easily passed over for an established veteran in the closer's role. Given his performance I wouldn't be surprised to see him as a closer in the near future. I doubt that it would have been a good idea to use any of our relievers outside of Shouse and Cordero in the role you described for Marmol.

Edit: If Capellan had come in this year and pitched at least like he did last year, he would have filled in that Marmol type roll for us. To me that is the most important guy in the pen. I still stick with Villanueva for my MPV for this reason.

 

I agree that we have/had nobody like Marmol and wasn't trying to imply we did.I do think though that many managers,Yost included,would have instead locked Marmol in largely a certain inning role vs letting the guy go out there and snuff out dangerous situations whenever they arose.Thinking outside the managers handbook isn't a strong suit for many managers in the game.

Maybe next year the Cubs/Pinella will fall prey to a Yost like mentality and decide Marmol has to be only used in a certain inning and with a certain score in the game.I sure hope that becomes the case because i watched quite a few Cubs games this year and the ability of Marmol to be brought it at any time when real trouble was brewing and shutting the door was huge for them preserving leads or stopping leads from growing.I'd much rather they lock Marmol into a designated role and when possible game changing danger is brewing in the 6th/7th inning,they say nope he can't be brought in yet,my self created handbook says Marmol isn't allowed to be brought until later.

 

 

 

 

 

[PeaveyFury]

Doug has had a pretty good record about players that he's moved not coming back to bite us, so I'd like to see what kind of careers Inman and Garrison have, as well as what happens with Linebrink this offseason before getting too worked up.

[pogokat]

yeah but this is the ffirst time we've traded anyone as highly thought of as inman...

 

eveland, for all his former potential, had lost a bit of his luster by the time he was traded last year...inman and garrison are at the peak of their prospect...garrison may actually still be rising...

 

so this is new territory for doug

[PeaveyFury]

Not that I disagree, but Nelson Cruz was one of our top prospects when traded.

 

But yeah, probably not as highly thought of as Inman.