did linebrink trade handcuff brewers this offseason?

[ozzybourne]

without too much research, it seems to me that some of the trades for the big names this offseason have been executed with nominal return to the trading team. could the brewers have been more active/successful this offseason if we had those pitching prospects to include in possible trades this winter? some of those traded mlb stud players--yes salary/free agent status could come into play--would look very good drinking a cold miller this year. we are after the playoffs/ws this year....right? santana,cabrera,bedard, oh my. we could not offer up the same or more?

[AdvantageSchneider]

The guys we gave up were not going to get Santana or Cabrera. I don't know about Bedard, but I really don't think we need more starting pitching regardless. We need better defense and a solid bullpen. I think we got the bullpen and hopefully the defense will improve with Braun in LF and Cameron in CF.

[ozzybourne]

The guys we gave up were not going to get Santana or Cabrera. I don't know about Bedard, but I really don't think we need more starting pitching regardless. We need better defense and a solid bullpen. I think we got the bullpen and hopefully the defense will improve with Braun in LF and Cameron in CF.

we did improve the D, possibly. and the bullpen, probably. but as we saw with the packers, the window to win may be narrow.

 

those prospects on their own-no. but toss in a laporte, a CV or a parra or tgj or ? or all of them-then you might have something.

we have enough depth-and did with the linebrink guys in some combo added to it--to compete. the building for the future is over.

win now, thats what i say. cameron/kendall is a patch job. the tigers did trade miller/maybin, but they are still prospects.

[Ennder]

We gave up very little that mattered in the Linebrink trade and more importantly the trade itself could have put us in the playoffs. We ended up just 2 games down so even a marginal value trade had the chance of making the difference.

[Big Reed]

the point that should be made is that the orioles received a top 25 overall prospect in Adama Jones. the marlins received two top 25 overall prospects in Miller and Mayburn. Inman may have been a top prospect for the brewers, but overall, he would have been lucky to be a top 200 overall prospect. Simply stated, Gallardo is the same caliber of prospect as maybin, miller and Jones, and melvin refused to trade him. Melvin should be able to draft a player with the supplemental picks gained from the loss of linebrink that should be as good if not better than Inman.

[ozzybourne]

the point that should be made is that the orioles received a top 25 overall prospect in Adama Jones. the marlins received two top 25 overall prospects in Miller and Mayburn. Inman may have been a top prospect for the brewers, but overall, he would have been lucky to be a top 200 overall prospect. Simply stated, Gallardo is the same caliber of prospect as maybin, miller and Jones, and melvin refused to trade him. Melvin should be able to draft a player with the supplemental picks gained from the loss of linebrink that should be as good if not better than Inman.

what about the others mentioned? some gm's look at needs along with top 25/50 rankings. CV and parra? with inman or laporte?

i may not rate prospects as highly as others, but some of the cattle moved could have been matched with some package from the brewers. i still say some of the studs may have been gotten, except for a lets keep building attitude from DM. our future is bright, but strike when the fire is hot.

 

yes he went after linebrink in a pennant chase--first one in years--but he was the wrong player at the wrong time(big slump). so credit for a move. it still seems that some of the studs moved this offseason went far cheaper than they should, and that the brewers could have gotten involved.

[logan82]

ozzybourne wrote:

what about the others mentioned? some gm's look at needs along with top 25/50 rankings. CV and parra? with inman or laporte?

I am not sure how much trade value that Claudio Vargas has.

[ozzybourne]

ozzybourne wrote:

what about the others mentioned? some gm's look at needs along with top 25/50 rankings. CV and parra? with inman or laporte?

I am not sure how much trade value that Claudio Vargas has.

sorry--cv means carlos villenueva

[bullox]

It's an interesting theory, however in concurrence with some of the above replies I don't believe that those traded prospects would have netted the Brewers a difference maker. Going above and beyond those traded prospects to sweeten a bigger deal digs in to the depth of the Brewers' minor league system, which has been the bread and butter of what is to become a solid run over the next few years.

 

Sometimes standing pat has its benefits. In this case, I believe it's true. Although the Brewers were far from standing pat this offseason, they didn't add a huge difference maker on the level of a Santana or Cabrera, but on the same token they also didn't sell the farm to do so.

[ozzybourne]

Simply stated, Gallardo is the same caliber of prospect as maybin, miller and Jones,

sorry to disagree here--maybin, miller and jones are prospects, yes. and none of them has produced in the bigs remotely to what gallardo did last year. so DM would never trade gallardo after what he did--just as none of the 3 players you mention would have been traded if they performed to a similiar level in the bigs that gallardo did. that is why they are still prospects--good ones yes.

but still traded. would you trade gallardo now? nor would i or DM.

 

i say if you can improve your team to win now--we are there-trade any/all prospects to do it. there are way,way,way too many can't miss prospects who miss.

[logan82]

ozzybourne wrote:

sorry--cv means carlos villenueva

http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif I kind of figured that. I was just messing with ya. You probably should use more tham just initials until, hopefully soon, Claudio is traded.

[TheBrewer]

Santana - even if we had the prospects it never would of happened, we can't afford to resign him

Cabrera - same deal, wouldn't of had the money to re-sign him to a huge contract, both of these guys are not what were about

 

Bedard - had a better contract, not forced with re-signing him since I believe he has 2 years on his contract left. The O's were asking for Corey Hart - came straight from owner Mark A. at the winter warmup when I asked him. I don't know the details though.

 

I think all together with the Linebrink trade, Inman was a great prospect at the time we dealt him, but at the same time many scouts were already saying negative things about him, if he had done that at AA and AAA then he's a top 20 prospect in all of baseball. But anyways, if we had held onto him, Im just saying him because he's the most notable in that trade, but if we held onto him, we still even without Corey Hart in a deal for Bedard, we still would've had to add in at least a Matt LaPorta type player etc. All of our top talent in years past is in the major leagues, and with that said teams are asking about the Weeks, the Fielder, the Hardy, the Hart, there not after our minor league players as much anymore as they use to be. Any trade for Bedard (that is if Mark A was lieing or Doug could've gone around Hart), would've consisted of at least LaPorta, Inman, Escobar, maybe Gwynn something around that.. so while Innman may have been a significant piece to acquiring Bedard, I think that adding in LaPorta, Escobar, Gwynn, etc Doug wouldn't do.. at least thats my thinking..

 

Also, it should be noted that LaPorta can't be dealt until what a full year after signing with the club or something like that.. if I'm wrong correct me, but if I'm right, that would've meant another big name player instead of LaPorta would have to fill that hole in the trade, which would mean potentially a Gallardo maybe.. Keep in mind Bedard wasnt up for trade last season either.

[Tbadder]

Corey Hart for Bedard! Sign me up.

[JohnBriggs12]

"Inman ... would have been lucky to be a top 200 prospect"

 

That's underestimating him by quite a bit. As a 20 year old, he was pitching in AA for most of 2007 and he did fine in the Texas League. Overall he fanned 180 hitters in 2007.

 

But forget about Inman, Garrison is just as impressive if not more. Also 20, he was 10-7 with a combined 3.25 ERA in high A ball. Also don't forget Thatcher who sparkled in the big leagues.

 

Melvin got fleeced. Two 20 year old pitchers now in SD top 10 prospects (Garrison 6th, Inman 7th), plus a young cheap effective Loogy for Linebrink?

 

Look the Brewers were never going to go after Santana and the Orioles wanted a young OF in any Bedard deal, but not having those 3 guys certainly did give Melvin a lot less to work with.

 

But having those 3 might have put them in the running for Jose Valverde instead of having to throw $10 million at Eric Gagne for one year. Or they might have had enough to get Dan Haren. Or they might have gotten that lefthanded bat they were more in need of than Cameron's strikeout prone right handed bat.

[dadofandrew]

I would have to agree with Reed's summation, Inman, while still a decent prospect, is barely a top 200 guy, nothing compared to the Yos and such of MLB.

 

Doug could have probably picked up a pretty big name using Parra and Escobar as centerpieces, but he's looking to build a few years of success, not 1-2.

[Ennder]

Melvin got fleeced. Two 20 year old pitchers now in SD top 10 prospects (Garrison 6th, Inman 7th), plus a young cheap effective Loogy for Linebrink?

 

While I disagree with your opinion of Garrison you do need to mention the two draft picks we got as well which if used properly will net players just as good as Garrison and Inman. Linebrink isn't the guy I wanted last year but I still see the deal as pretty even right now. Whether it is even or not later depends on who we pick and how everyone turns out.

 

Inman is listed as a #5 as a B prospect on sickels list. Garrison is listed as #12 and is a C+ prospect. My personal opinion is Inman will struggle heavily in AAA and will be lower next year but we'll just have to see. Of course the Padres can turn any pitcher into at least an ok pitcher because of that park they play in so they can afford to take risks on young pitching.

[homer]

While I would not go so far as to use the word "fleece" until the prospects actually hit the majors, I do think the Brewers botched that trade. I don't see trading three solid prospects for a two month rental of a middle reliever as a really good move.

[Whatwaswrongwithalexochoa]

Getting Gagne instead of Valverde was the right move. Valverde isn't that much cheaper or better that it would be worth giving prospects for him. If Gagne stays healthy he helps them win this year and they take the two picks when he signs with another team next year.

[JohnBriggs12]

Melvin got fleeced. Two 20 year old pitchers now in SD top 10 prospects (Garrison 6th, Inman 7th), plus a young cheap effective Loogy for Linebrink?

 

While I disagree with your opinion of Garrison you do need to mention the two draft picks we got as well which if used properly will net players just as good as Garrison and Inman. Linebrink isn't the guy I wanted last year but I still see the deal as pretty even right now. Whether it is even or not later depends on who we pick and how everyone turns out.

 

Inman is listed as a #5 as a B prospect on sickels list. Garrison is listed as #12 and is a C+ prospect. My personal opinion is Inman will struggle heavily in AAA and will be lower next year but we'll just have to see. Of course the Padres can turn any pitcher into at least an ok pitcher because of that park they play in so they can afford to take risks on young pitching.

 

I think if Inman and Garrison were in this year's draft, they'd go higher than the 2 picks the Brewers get based on what they've done by age 20 in the minors vs. say a college pitcher. There's no guarantee either much less both of the picks will be top 10 or even top 12 type prospects a couple years down the road.

[twobrewers]

I would have to agree with Reed's summation, Inman, while still a decent prospect, is barely a top 200 guy, nothing compared to the Yos and such of MLB

Thirded. Inman's star is starting to dull pretty good.

 

Every report on him basically has him pitching well because of his control in the minors...but the "stuff" just isn't there. Most believe at best he is a #4 starter. Likely a #5 starter.

 

To put that in perspective, Inman will be lucky to have as good of a career as Claudio Vargas.

[dadofandrew]

Strictly because of his size, Inman projects as a reliever. Some guys manage to beat the stereotype, but there's a reason it exists.

[DrWood]

In retrospect, you don't do the linebrink trade. Period. At the time it was entirely appropriate as it was an attempt to win the division, but since that failed, you can view the trade as a failure. Unfortunately we live in the here and now rather than "retrospect land".

So, what happens if the brewers didn't do that trade?

They would have more chips available to acquire someone. They still wouldn't have a prospect like Jones to get Bedard, they still wouldn't have a prospect like Maybin to get Cabrera. They could have put together a package as good as MN got for Santana, but he'd clearly be a rental for the brewers.

As far as the long-term impact for the organization and the team, I think it's close to a wash, but that depends, obviously, on how inman, garrison, and thatcher progress from here forward, and who the brewers pick with the compensatory selections.

[trwi7]

They could have put together a package as good as MN got for Santana, but he'd clearly be a rental for the brewers.

They could have put a package for Santana together but Santana would have used his no trade clause because we wouldn't be able to give him the extension he wanted.

[Ennder]

I think the only trade that might not have happened because of the linebrink deal was for a 3B. We might have ended up with Blalock, Crede or Rolen had we not done the linebrink deal.

 

Personally I think the team is better for not making those trades so I'm ok with it.

[homer]

My gripe wasn't so much with who we traded, its what we got in return. I think they could have gotten more than a two month rental of a middle reliever for those same three prospects.