Linebrink to the White Sox

[don1481]

This trade already favors the Padres -- the question is, will it ever favor the Brewers -- the Padres cleared out a rag arm

for Heath Bell, got a guy in Thatcher that helped them in the playoff race and got a more developed arm in Inman. I'm sure

they are happy

It only favors the Padres because they got an immediate return on the trade; the Brewers' return on it won't be fully known for several years. As I said before, if the Brewers are able to flip these picks into talent that follows closer on the Yo path rather than the Jeffress route, it'll favor the Brewers. It's a gamble, but as I've said before, smaller market teams need to take those gambles and keep on replenishing through the draft and trading for rentals that will help them that season and letting those rentals walk and take the draft picks that will either hopefully develop into MLB contributors or trading chips to acquire more rentals.

 

[valpocrewsader]

Man o man, sometimes you gotta pay to play. That's a pretty reasonable contract for a bonafide good reliever, we shoulda jumped all over that. To know we would have a legit performer like Linebrink available in the pen for the next 4 years? Sign me up!

 

We should have started the offseason with re-signing both Linebrink and Cordero, at any cost, and then made yet other aquisitions from there (Dotel, Riske) to improve even further. If Cordero stays, we're way too thin in the pen to avoid trotting out the typical Balfour/Spurling/Stetter/Dessens/McClung/Mota/Choate BBQ laughers. If Cordero walks, we are doomed. I know the off-season is young, but based on history, I have absolutely no expectation that Doug will address the bullpen in an offseason with anything but reclamations, cast-offs, and madcap experiments like moving starting pitchers back there or relying on inexperienced arms from within our system.

[sbrylski]

Geno, I disagree with most of your post. As others have pointed out, the draft pick consequences of our moves are just one part of the thought-process, as they should be. To say DM isn't focused on taking advantage of this window here based on not resigning a declining MR at a relatively large and long contract and signing Jason Kendall over Mike Barrett is grasping for straws. Cordero hasn't been signed away from us yet, and even if he is I wouldn't blame Melvin. Draft picks will not be the driving motivation there, it'll be the large % of payroll it'd take. The draft picks are just a bonus. We haven't been heavily involved in FA in the past, and we won't be in the future, because we are small market team. Judging our offseason before trades week is wasted breath, to be blunt.

[Fatter than Joey]

It only favors the Padres because they got an immediate return on the trade

 

I think that was their main objective.

 

As I said before, if the Brewers are able to flip these picks into talent that follows closer on the Yo path rather than the Jeffress route, it'll favor the Brewers

 

I have never understood this line of logic when used as the primary means of breaking down trades. (not that it is wrong)

 

I have always felt the point of a trade is to improve your team, not necessarily get the best of your trading partner.

 

I don't think the Linebrink trade could have worked out better for the Padres. I think they had a better idea of the quality

of all the pitchers involved than the Brewers, and made a very shrewd deal.

 

It seems entirely arbitrary to me, to have to wait until 2010-2011 to officially feel good/bad about this trade, because we

need to see if our draft picks give us more value than whatever Inman gives the Padres

 

If DM's main objective was to start stockpiling draftpicks, then he accomplished that. My problem with that project, is that we lost some

minor league talent, and had to endure a pitcher with a rag arm losing games for us in a July-August pennant race. That seems like an expensive tag.

 

I'm glad he didn't sign Linebrink to a four year deal.

[Weirdos19]

Well, I don't have the research to back this, but most middle relievers fizzle after pitching around 80 games four seasons in a row. We talked about this when Eyre got all that money from the Cubs.

 

Linebrink fits this description, big time. And, yes, the Padres dumped him at the right time. I am very glad we didn't sign him for four years.

[twobrewers]

It seems like everyone assumes there are only two roads to travel.
1. Try to win now
2. Build for the future

Those are not black and white options. There are many shades of gray in between. We have to take some shots to win now. At the same time, we must always work to develop home grown talent.

The Linebrink trade was made to help our team last year. (Granted, Thatcher might have done the same) But the Linebrink trade was also made to help our team in the future - as Melvin had mentioned with the draft picks. They are not mutually exclusive.

[danzig6767]

Are the White Sox older than the Yankees yet? They're this close to a spectacular crash and burn for the second season in a roll. They seem to think that they were really a 90 win team in disguise and just need to tweak some problem areas.

I have to believe that Melvin has some major prospect laden trade looming that will really empty out the upper levels of the farm system. A Chad Cordero or Brian Fuentes or Huston Street level deal, maybe a couple such deals. Now that would be a logical explanation for an added emphasis on draft picks. It's obvious that the Brewers aren't going to be major players in free agency. And trading is going to require probably multiple prospects. In a certain sense, I think it's kind of silly to count pre-arbitration players as completely separate from prospects. None of those players are going anywhere anytime soon, after all, at least without the Brewers say so.

Robert

 

 

Yep

If i had to bet on how Melvin acquires bullpen help and/or a LF guy, it will be via the trade route and that likely will include prospects from our end. Maybe he signs one free agent relief pitcher and then makes a trade or two, but either way, we are shipping out more prospects from a farm system that will look pretty thin afterwards. Getting the picks for Linebrink helps in trying to restock the farm system, plus i do think Melvin wasn't thrilled at the though of locking up Linebrink for another four seasons at 5 million per.

As for Kendall over Barrett, my guess is the those in charge were never really interested in him. We will have a fairly young pitching staff and possibly very young if Sheets is dealt, i doubt they wanted a catcher back their with the poor rep Barrett had in regards to handling pitchers. Not wanting to fork over a first rounder made Barrett look even less appealing.

 

[Zycho32]

All in all, we are still a Small Market team and that's not likely to change in the near future- Potential Championship Nucleus notwithstanding. The biggest guys we got on the team in terms of talent and production? Farm Products. Even now our FA acquisitions are usually at a peak grade of B or so, and we need a deep pool of prospects to acquire the guys we want in trades.

 

It's kind of a cycle that has to be maintained and if you deviate from that badly enough, it's likely to collapse and we may fall into another double-decade period of suckitude.

 

Basically, trading for Linebrink was a gamble that didn't pay off- but it was a gamble that had to be made. Losing Linebrink was a calculated move in the interests of replenishing our Farm Assets a little faster. That's the way we have to play.

 

Unless of course you're willing to throw down an extra 100 Million into the Team Coffers.

[Mass Haas]

I know trades are never analyzed this way, but wouldn't it be extreme (and fun to project) that Joe Thatcher, Will Inman, etc., eventually become Type A free agents and leave San Diego, thus bringing the Padres additional draft picks? And by the time those draft picks hit the majors and excel, a whole decade or more could have passed? Or for that matter, the players who the Brewers are about to draft eventually become free agents as well and earn the Brewers additional compensation....

 

It would take a ton of research, but it'd be interesting to see the exact path that trades involving draft pick compensation take and have taken in the past, either through other trades or draft picks, to see the possible impact a trade could have for nearly a generation (or more) on the two franchises.

 

Just silly talk, now back to the Linebrink discussion...

[gregmag]

We talk a lot -- for obvious reasons -- about the value of present vs. future benefits of various player moves. One interesting change in that discussion is that we now have some present behind us. What I mean by that Yogi-ism is that, for the first time in eons, we have a contending season in the rearview mirror, which requires/allows us to make a "morning after" assessment of moves we made to leverage the future for the sake of that season.

 

I think reillymacshane's post above make maybe the best points in what has been an excellent discussion. Joe Thatcher looks like exactly the kind of reliever we would love to have in 2008. Will Inman quite realistically could have been ready for a second-half call-up to the Brewers in 2008. We aren't talking about distant future benefits: we mortgaged some important 2008 interests to try to go over the top in 2007. Now, there's nothing categorically wrong with that; we were in a position to win in 2007. The problem is that we gave up what looks at this moment like some very significant 2008 value to get a pitcher who many of us here predicted would pitch exactly the way he did -- not nearly well enough to tip a pennant race. That was in no way a genius prediction; it was by far the safe bet, given the number of innings relievers pitch and Linebrink's recent downward trends. He would have had to pitch out of his mind to put us in the playoffs.

 

Talking about letting Linebrink go for draft picks as the big present-future tradeoff misses the major point in this story, IMHO. We traded some big pieces of our immediate future for a tiny increment of present benefit in 2007. The immediate future has arrived. I hated the Linebrink trade the day it was made, but it really hurts now. The choice between massively overpaying for Linebrink's decline years and taking two draft picks that may help us around the time he retires strikes me as pretty trivial compared to the mistake we already made.

 

Greg.

[molitor fan]

Greg, that post was a lot like the turkey dinner I had yesterday: it hit the spot, was right on target in every way (thanks mom), and afterwards, I was a little sleepy. I just wish we would have given the Padres Gwynn in that trade (which is what the Pads initially wanted), and now would have those pieces mentioned, plus the draft picks Linebrink has garnered.

[DrWood]

Kendall is an improvement over Estrada but the trade for FederlineStink was awful. Picks are great but if they turn into the Rodgers and Jeffries variety, that doesn't = Inman + Thatcher + Garrison and that's how this trade should be graded now.

You're not going to be able to grade this trade for a few more years, until we see who the draft picks are and how they turn out. Yes - if they're the Rogers/Jeffress variety, then this trade favors the Padres.

I suggest it might take less than a few more years to consider Rogers or Jeffress as being successes rather than failures.

 

thing is, we can place a value on inman, thatcher, and garrison, but so can Melvin. Melvin probably has a better ability to do so than we do. The future will tell who was right.

[PeaveyFury]

I just wish we would have given the Padres Gwynn in that trade (which is what the Pads initially wanted)

 

I don't remember hearing that, do you remember where you saw that?

[dadofandrew]

If Coco does indeed leave, a 4y/$20M for Linebrink as the closer would have looked a lot better in retrospect.

[RobertR]

I don't think 4 years, $20 million would ever look particularly good for Linebrink. Not with his peripherals trending in the wrong direction. You try to pay people based on their talent, not their role. It's the 4th year, more than the yearly salary, that makes me think it's a poor deal.

 

Robert

[Fatter than Joey]

I don't think 4 years, $20 million would ever look particularly good for Linebrink.

 

I agree, I am glad the Brewers cut ties with Linebrink.

[molitor fan]

Peavey, this is what I found linked from mlbtraderumors.com, taken from the San Diego Union Tribune:

Another tidbit: the same San Diego Union-Tribune column linked above mentions that the Padres asked for Tony Gwynn Jr. from the Brewers during the Scott Linebrink discussions.

[homer]

"Linebrink was worth the gamble, tean was in contention and needed to get some help in the pen. Most people in the baseball world from what I had read figured Inman as a #4 starter. Here at Brewerfan some think he was a #1 type guy. "

 

Too bad the Crew also gave up Thatcher and Garrison (who may end up better than Inman).

[DrWood]

"Linebrink was worth the gamble, tean was in contention and needed to get some help in the pen. Most people in the baseball world from what I had read figured Inman as a #4 starter. Here at Brewerfan some think he was a #1 type guy. "

 

Too bad the Crew also gave up Thatcher and Garrison (who may end up better than Inman).

Regarding Thatcher, did the brewers really want TWO soft-tossing sidearm-throwing lefties on the same staff? He's redundant with Shouse, though lots younger.

The only way Garrison ends up better than Inman is if Inman never really cuts it in the majors. Garrison is strictly back of the rotation lefty starter, or possibly transitioning to a LOOGY.

 

[molitor fan]

Regarding Thatcher, did the brewers really want TWO soft-tossing sidearm-throwing lefties on the same staff? He's redundant with Shouse, though lots younger.

 

Thatcher was sitting at 89 during the Brewers series, so "soft-tossing lefty" is not something that should be attached to Thatcher.

[Fatter than Joey]

He's redundant with Shouse,

 

Not really -- I think Thatcher is more effective facing RHers -- Shouse should be a LOOGY

[endaround]

And guess what, Thatcher could have been traded for something else. This is one thing that people keep overlooking. If Inman was still with the Brewers tradign for a new closer would be loads easier. Capunao and Inman would give a team an immediate pitcher plus a good prospect.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

Splitter:

 

"...he (Barrett) took a cheap shot at AJ Pierzynski. "

 

Video shows that, for no actual baseball-related reason, on that play, poor victim Pierzynski went out of his way to bump Barrett shoulder to shoulder and stared him down in a confrontational manner. After the game Pierzynski told the media "I was just going there (behind Barrett at home plate) to get my helmet." But 1) This little task has been performed by batboys for decades, 2) Retrieving his own helmet after a play would have happened for the first time in his career and 3) Pierzynski is the same person who homered off Carlos Zambrano, stared at the pitcher, closed his eyes, extended both index fingers, and pointed to the skies (Zambrano's signature move). Pierzynski will never become involved in a fight he didn't already instigate. Hell, Barrett should get an award for doing what just about every fan has dreamed of, punching Pierzynski's lights out.

 

"I think Barrett is at least as bad as any catcher you can name defensively too. "

 

Catchers I can name who are worse, defensively, than Michael Barrett:

 

Jason Kendall

Johnny Estrada

Mike Piazza

Victor Martinez

Dioner Navarro

Gerald Laird

Miguel Olivo

 

I just hope Doug isn't done for the offseason. Carl Crawford batting 3rd in left field would not just restore my faith in Doug, but I'd lobby for extending DM's contract...

[brettac1]

Yeah, Pierzynski is one of, if not the, biggest jerks in MLB. I think I would punch him for far less than Barrett did, and I'm not a violent dude.

 

Call me crazy, but who knows, maybe once the arby deadline passes they attempt to sign Barrett if he's not offered. I really don't see him getting a big contract, and the offensive upside is pretty high.

[homer]

I think Linebrink is where the 'win now' mentality gets in the way of sound roster management. I didn't really disagree with improving the bullpen last year, but they probably could have gotten the same thing that Linebrink gave them by bringing up Thatcher and another guy - then they'd still have Garrison and Inman as trade bait for something they really need - like a closer or a full year of bullpen help instead of two months worth.

 

But what's done is done - no use dwelling on the past....until Garrison is a starter in the majors and Inman is bouncing back and forth between the bigs and AAA http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif