Scott Linebrink trade revisted

[And That]

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

I disagree. This is the first time we've unloaded really good talent in a bunch. Not only can you take Will Inman, here's Steve Garrison and this other guy that will nearly match Linebrink anyway. It's the grouping of the guys that really bothers me.

[pogokat]

while true about cruz, he was 26...not 21, or 20...and he had some pretty obvious deficiencies...inman and garrison aren't surefire...but they are better prospects than nelson was...

 

and two of them in one trade...ugh..

 

if this trade had happened before the season started, i wouldn't have been nearly as upset, but i just saw it as wealth squandered

[PeaveyFury]

while true about cruz, he was 26...not 21, or 20...and he had some pretty obvious deficiencies...inman and garrison aren't surefire...but they are better prospects than nelson was...

 

True as well. But the counterpoint would be that Cruz also had success at AAA and was more projectable into the Majors and closer, which makes his complete horrificness all that more surprising.

[Ennder]

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?

 

Thatcher wasn't any better than Linebrink down the stretch from a peripheral standpoint, he just had a really low BABIP which drove his ERA and he was mostly a LOOGY.

 

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

 

Most scouts consider Inman a future #4 starter who overachieved in the low minors.

[endaround]

Trading a #4 starter for 2 months of Linebrink is still a bad decision

[Ennder]

Trading a #4 starter for 2 months of Linebrink is still a bad decision

I'd take that trade over and over, Linebrink who mattered this season and at least 1 draft pick for a low upside prospect is a good deal to me. We gave up 3 low upside guys for a run at the playoffs, we missed the playoffs so its not going to seem worth it but Melvin didnt' know we'd miss them.

[pogokat]

you do realize that villy was a low upside prospect 2 years ago...same as capuano...

[Ennder]

you do realize that villy was a low upside prospect 2 years ago...same as capuano...

And Capuano has been a #4 except for 2006. I'll take the risk with a #4 SP prospect vs a key part of a playoff run and a future high round pick every time. Linebrink was easily the 2nd best option on the team vs righties after we got him and if we do not re-sign him we get a player who most likely is comperable to Inman in the draft. That leaves Thatcher and Garrison vs what Linebrink gave us this year as the real comparison.

 

In my opinion Thatcher is a decent but not great upside LOOGY and I don't know much about Garrison, but I feel they are both very replaceable so it really comes down to Inman vs the pick we get from losing Linebrink.

[logan82]

We have a minimum of 3 years right now with Suppan, Bush, Villanueva, Gallardo and Parra. That points to Inman either staying in AAA for more than a year or coming up and pitching out of the pen. In that time we can either trade for or develope prospects to take the place on Inman.

[mikemercury]

pogokat wrote:

---

you do realize that villy was a low upside prospect 2 years ago...same as capuano...

For every one Villy in chamber there are five blanks or Ty Taubanhiem's (from the Overbay/Bush,Gross, Zach Jack) in the prospect pistol. Garrison could be Capuano, but Inman could be a Jorge Del Rosa type prospect from a hype standpoint. Due to the lack of oppourtunities in the upcomming seasons Inman's value was at an alltime high. GM's want Ben Hendrickson after he's the IL AAA Pitcher of the year, nobody wants him when he's DFA'd. (except the Royals).

 

Melvin said the Padres held out to get Garrison, otherwise the deal doesn't get done. How can people say we overpaid when just Inman and Thatcher alone wouldn't have got us Linebrink. Didn't the Redsox give up way more to get an injury prone Gagne, after they had pretty much locked up a playoff birth anyway?

[endaround]

We have a minimum of 3 years right now with Suppan, Bush, Villanueva, Gallardo and Parra. That points to Inman either staying in AAA for more than a year or coming up and pitching out of the pen. In that time we can either trade for or develope prospects to take the place on Inman.

But now we don't have Inman to make a deal to get Cordero out of Washington. Its not that Inman would be in Mikwaukee, its that he can no longer be trade to get something of real use. Same issue I had with trading Eveland. Its not that Eveland was gone, its that all he brought back was Vargas.

 

[Tbadder]

Thatcher will be sent down next year by the all-star break.

[pogokat]

inman put up better numbers than every minor league pitcher we've had since sheets was drafted...struck out a bunch of guys, walked no one, kept the homers down...this is revisionism...inman is more than a 4 prospect...he's a hell of a lot closer to yo than he is taubenheim...

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Didn't the Redsox give up way more to get an injury prone Gagne, after they had pretty much locked up a playoff birth anyway?

 

In a word, no. Here's what the Red Sox traded:

 

Kason Gabbard: 25 yr old LHP w/ a bit of MLB experience. Really unimpressive peripheral stats in the minors. Pitched pretty well in Texas's rotation down the stretch, but cannot possibly hope to maintain that ERA (4.07) without increasing Ks or decreasing BBs. Eveland had more value when we traded him.

 

David Murphy: 25 yr old OF. Can play CF, but I can't see him ever hitting well enough to hold down a regular starting job. Lifetime in the minors: .273/.343/.407. Gross had more value (a lot, I think), when we acquired him.

 

Engel Beltre: 17 yr old Dominican OF. 1st year in organized baseball. Way too far off to have much value.

 

If anything, injury-prone or not, Gagne should have had more value as a rental than Linebrink. At least prior to his collapse down the stretch. After all, he's a Proven Closer !

[Ennder]

inman put up better numbers than every minor league pitcher we've had since sheets was drafted...struck out a bunch of guys, walked no one, kept the homers down...this is revisionism...inman is more than a 4 prospect...he's a hell of a lot closer to yo than he is taubenheim...

 

He walked almost 4 per 9 last season in AA and his K's are already below 9 per 9. Those stats don't compare to Gallardo's, they weren't as good as Villaneuva's, they aren't as good as Parra's. Yes he's a legit prospect but don't try to turn him into a future #1 or something, his stats suggest a #3 and the scouting on him suggests a #4.

[pogokat]

you are only looking at the sample from AA ennder...he was phenomenal everywhere else..

 

anyway, i think my stance on this is well established

[Tbadder]

In some ways, and I can't believe I'm saying this...we gotta trust Melvin, Z's people, etc. While I admit that I don't know as much as you guys I have two observations to make (neither of which may be true in the objective sense, but are in the empirical sense). Baseball is littered with lousy players who put up awesome numbers in A ball and below, and most short pitchers are destined for night managers at the local 7/11 (of course the exceptions seem to be exceptional).

 

2nd observation: September doesn't count. I can't believe that the whole Brewer organization whiffed on Thatcher. I mean, he may be good, but his numbers weren't that good--they were friggen amazing in San Deigo. Ah...I smell a flame that's burning twice as bright and half as long here.

 

The problem with the trade is that Linebrink is the new Linebrink and not the old Linebrink. If he had been the Linebrink B.C., and solidified an overworked bullpen, it'd be our asses being handed to us on a platter in Arizona and not our friends, the Cubbies.

[brosto1]

The comp pick(s) have always been a big part of the trade. If the Brewers actually get two picks for Linebrink, this trade is not that bad. I will gladly take my chances with two high round picks out-producing two minor leaguers that had not shown a lot above A ball and were lower picks to begin with.

 

Thatcher did look decent for SD, but if he was such a sure-fire addition for Melvin, then I would have thought that he would have been up with the Padres from the get go and never been sent to the minors. After Balfour imploded in his brief time here after posting just as good of numbers as Thatcher did in the minors, I cannot blame Melvin for not having a lot of trust that Thatcher would pitch as well as a proven vet like Linebrink.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Inman's peripherals have been clearly better than Villeneuva's (and he was a year younger at every promotion), and arguably better than Gallardo's, at every level of the minors until AA. The AA comparison is as follows:

 

Yo (age 20): 9.9 K/9, 3.3 BB/9, 0.23 HR/9 in 77 IP

Villy (age 21): 6.1 K/9, 3.9 BB/9, 1.3 HR/9 in 21 IP

Villy (age 22, repeating): 8.5 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, .9 HR/9 in 62 IP

Inman (age 20): 9.1 K/9, 3.9 BB/9, 1.5 HR/9 in 81 IP

 

I don't know why everyone thinks Inman pitched badly at AA. Yo and Villy had BB/9 spikes making the jump too. The only (even moderately) troubling number I see in that line for a 20 year old in his first AA exposure is the 1.5 HR/9, but considering that he had only given up 12 HR in 240 previous minor league innings, I doubt the Padres are worried much.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

After Balfour imploded in his brief time here after posting just as good of numbers as Thatcher did in the minors, I cannot blame Melvin for not having a lot of trust that Thatcher would pitch as well as a proven vet like Linebrink.

 

I'm sorry but this line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me. How do Grant Balfour's 3 lousy innings have anything to do with Joe Thatcher? If Linebrink had come here and immediately given up 10 ER in his first 3 innings, would that make it defensible for Melvin to entirely lose trust in "proven vet" relievers?

[brosto1]

That line of thinking is right in line with the AAAA player tag. It wasn't like Thatcher was guaranteed of having any success in the majors. The pen was struggling and they needed someone that Melvin had trust in, not another minor league call-up in hopes that he may pitch well in the heat of pennant race, not long after he had signed out of an indy league. The chance of a minor leauger coming up an failing is much greater than a veteran with a good track record failing. QUite frankly, I was much more furious with Linebrink's fielding than his pitching. If he fields his position better, I think the Brewers would still be playing.

 

Inman may or may not turn out to be a guy that Melvin regrets dealing, but with Jack Z track record of high picks, I will not fret over losing Inman. I have been an Inman fan, love his attitude, just am not going to worry about giving up a pitcher whose command was not as good this year as in 2006. If he had great stuff, then I would be upset but he doesn't.

 

Here is an excerpt from a MiLb.com article on him.

 

""I think the biggest thing for me to be effective was the fact I don't walk a lot of guys," Inman said. "I throw a lot of strikes. I go right after guys. I hate walking guys. I'd almost rather give up a homer than walk them and let them get on base for free.

 

"I try to let them put the ball in play, let the fielders behind me help me. I go after them with everything I've got. I don't have the greatest stuff ever, and I know I don't, but I treat it like I do." "

[Ennder]

Inman's peripherals have been clearly better than Villeneuva's (and he was a year younger at every promotion), and arguably better than Gallardo's, at every level of the minors until AA. The AA comparison is as follows:

 

Yo (age 20): 9.9 K/9, 3.3 BB/9, 0.23 HR/9 in 77 IP

Villy (age 21): 6.1 K/9, 3.9 BB/9, 1.3 HR/9 in 21 IP

Villy (age 22, repeating): 8.5 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, .9 HR/9 in 62 IP

Inman (age 20): 9.1 K/9, 3.9 BB/9, 1.5 HR/9 in 81 IP

 

I don't know why everyone thinks Inman pitched badly at AA. Yo and Villy had BB/9 spikes making the jump too. The only (even moderately) troubling number I see in that line for a 20 year old in his first AA exposure is the 1.5 HR/9, but considering that he had only given up 12 HR in 240 previous minor league innings, I doubt the Padres are worried much.

 

Yes and unless you are counting 21 IP Inman is the worst of the bunch. He's also worse than parra's numbers granted at age 22.

 

The thing is before AA numbers are pretty much 100% useless. AA is the first real benchmark and Inman did not thrive at it, he's only 20 so maybe he'll thrive next year but the scouting suggests he will not and the stats even though limited support that right now. After next year maybe things change but the thing is he won't be in the majors full time until 2009 or maybe even 2010 so this is a long term question, there is no way to answer it right now.

[danzig6767]

I remember when the trade went down,two big questions hit me right away

 

1.Why were the Padres trading him?Would a team dead square in the middle of a playoff race trade a guy like Linebrink if they still thought he still had the stuff to be an upper tier setup man?

 

2.Why were the Padres willing to insert Thatcher right away into their bullpen,but we weren't?

 

If Thatcher goes on to be a good relief pitcher for a few years and Linebrink continues to be fairly mediocre next year, Melvin and/or our scouts made poor evaluations on both fronts.