LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next  [ 132 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Justin Verlander

Author Message
Offline  Justin Verlander
#1

Posted: June 28, 2017, 12:58 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 433
https://www.mlbdailydish.com/2017/6/28/ ... -verlander

Verlander has 2 years, $56M left on his contract plus another $14M or so for this season depending on when he would be traded.

He has a $22M vesting option for 2020 as well that would vest if he finishes in the top 5 in Cy Young voting in 2019. This adds a lot of money to his contract potentially but if that option vests I'm guessing no team would have a problem holding onto him for another year (at the very least you could just trade him that offseason, so that's a pretty solid option team-wise).

The risks are pretty obvious with Verlander. He's 34 with a lot of mileage on his arm, but was great last year and not worth his money this year but far from terrible. Maybe pitching for a 1st place team would amp him back up down the stretch.

He has the ace mentality, is an established innings eater, and might be way too expensive for some other contenders to take on his contract. This could lower the return for him prospect-wise if a team is willing to eat a large majority of his contract like the Brewers could. At the same time, this wouldn't seriously hamper the Brewers' salary situation due to the relatively short amount of time left on the contract. Plus with Garza's contract coming off the books next year, those savings could go toward Verlander for a few years.

Plus now that Aaron and Olivia split up, Wisconsin could use a new famous sports wife....


Any deal back to the Tigers would certainly include a pitcher currently in our rotation. I'm guessing either Garza or Davies. Obviously if Davies was included it would lessen the prospect load we'd have to pay more than Garza, but Garza's cheap option for next year could make him a nice replacement in the rotation for Verlander in the short term (I'm admittedly not sure about what the Tigers rotation looks like right now and if there's a prospect that they'd rather promote).

Does this seem like a deal you guys would be ok with? Would it require more prospects to get Verlander?

Brewers get:
Justin Verlander
The remainder of Verlander's 2016 contract (~$14M)

Tigers get:

Brett Phillips
Zach Davies
Freddy Peralta

or

Brett Phillips
Matt Garza
Freddy Peralta
Aaron Wilkerson
Wei-Chung Wang


I guess I just don't see the Brewers parting with any of their top name prospects except maybe Phillips given our outfield depth. If the Tigers aren't willing to take a volume deal but instead are looking for bigger prospects, then maybe a deal isn't possible.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#2

Posted: June 28, 2017, 1:05 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5396
As a note, Verlander has full no-trade protection as a 10-5 guy.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#3

Posted: June 28, 2017, 1:21 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 433
Could potentially lead to Verlander wanting that vesting option picked up in order to be traded.

In that case, we'd either want more money included with him or give up less prospects.

I still think the idea of going after Verlander is not a bad option to explore.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#4

Posted: June 28, 2017, 1:42 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 907
Definitely worth asking about. I think the point that the Brewers could absorb that contract has to have some appeal and may require a lesser return.

He didn't really "flip the switch" until the second half of last season either. Maybe he has a repeat performance in him. I'd be fine giving up any of those listed players.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#5

Posted: June 28, 2017, 1:47 PM Post
Posts: 1107
I bet he would veto a trade to us. Kate Upton doesn't do Milwaukee


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#6

Posted: June 28, 2017, 2:07 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5955
KCBrewerfan34 said:
I bet he would veto a trade to us. Kate Upton doesn't do Milwaukee


Because Detroit is that much more Hollywood?


If either of the two deals are possible to grab Verlander, how could ya not?


Last edited by Brew4U on June 28, 2017, 2:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

“There's a fine line between being confident and cocky, or overconfident. This is an extremely humbling game. But if you don't believe in yourself, no one else is going to believe in you.”


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#7

Posted: June 28, 2017, 2:25 PM Post
Posts: 1107
Brew4U said:
KCBrewerfan34 said:
I bet he would veto a trade to us. Kate Upton doesn't do Milwaukee


Because Detroit is that much more Hollywood?




Duh, he would want to get traded to a bigger market and someone who will compete for the remaining 3-4 years of a contract, we are in a rebuild, see many many many previous posts.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#8

Posted: June 28, 2017, 2:27 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5955
KCBrewerfan34 said:
Brew4U said:
KCBrewerfan34 said:
I bet he would veto a trade to us. Kate Upton doesn't do Milwaukee


Because Detroit is that much more Hollywood?




Duh, he would want to get traded to a bigger market and someone who will compete for the remaining 3-4 years of a contract, we are in a rebuild, see many many many previous posts.



A rebuild that has went faster than a lot thought it would. With Verlander leading the pitching staff with these young pups producing, who knows.

“There's a fine line between being confident and cocky, or overconfident. This is an extremely humbling game. But if you don't believe in yourself, no one else is going to believe in you.”


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#9

Posted: June 28, 2017, 2:42 PM Post
Posts: 6397
Location: Kenosha, WI
The dude is owed a ridiculous amount of money and isn't all that great. I wouldn't want to depend on him putting up elite stats anymore.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#10

Posted: June 28, 2017, 3:35 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 433
He was 2nd in CYA voting as recently as last year. I'd say he still has some production left in him.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#11

Posted: June 28, 2017, 3:38 PM Post
Posts: 6397
Location: Kenosha, WI
Greenleaf1 said:
He was 2nd in CYA voting as recently as last year. I'd say he still has some production left in him.


Easy to say when you aren't the one dropping $28mil a year for him. It is a giant risk to take on that much money at his age and with all the innings pitched.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#12

Posted: June 28, 2017, 5:04 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5396
At age 34, I'd be wary. He's been mediocre 3 of the last 4 years. I know it's easy to focus on last season - when he was excellent. But the inconsistency is a warning. He has the worst WHIP of his career - and the worst walk rate.

Verlander is owed $70M over the next 2.5 seasons. I just think it's too much to take on for someone who is aging - and showing some red flags this year with his performance.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#13

Posted: June 28, 2017, 5:14 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 6465
Those trade offers are grossly overvaluing Verlander if the Brewers are taking on his whole contract. Like others have said he's only been good 1 of the last 4 years, is owed a lot of money, and is very much on the downslope of his career. If the Brewers are paying the whole thing I'm only giving up one of these Stearns lottery ticket type prospects and some random throw in nobody minor leaguer.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#14

Posted: June 28, 2017, 6:34 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4705
Location: Phoenix, AZ
What about a 3-team trade? Where the Brewers take on Verlander's contract and the Tigers take on Braun's contract. That would then bring in a nice haul as the Dodgers could just pick up Braun with no money added to their payroll and they could even subtract some by sending Puig to either the Brewers or the Tigers in this scenario. Trade someone like Phillips or Diplan to the Tigers for Verlander and get one or two of the prospects coming back that the Dodgers would give up for Braun.

Maybe something like this works?

Dodgers get Braun
Tigers get Phillips/Diplan, Puig, and Lux
Brewers get Verlander, Oneil Cruz and Caleb Ferguson


Crazy trade that I don't think would even happen especially with the Brewers taking on all of Verlander and basically the Dodgers getting Braun for free (payroll wise) and the Tigers saving about $15m plus getting Puig, Phillips/Diplan and Lux in the deal.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#15

Posted: June 28, 2017, 7:21 PM Post
Posts: 477
Location: Madison, WI
Just looking at WAR and surplus value, Verlander would have to be right around a 3.2 WAR player per season in 2017/2018/2019 just to break even with that contract. Using Baseball Reference WAR values, from 2014-2016 Verlander was a 1.1, 1.2 and 6.6. So far this season he's a 1.2 so extrapolate that to a 2.4 over a full season. It's really hard for me to believe that the Brewer's front office would have a model that would indicate he's worth 28 million per season in a small market.

Strangely enough, the average WAR for Verlander from 2014 to 2016 is 2.967 and when his 2017 WAR is extrapolated for a full season it's 2.4...right in line with the 0.5 WAR drop per season that often is associated with hitters in the same age group that Verlander currently is. In this case, I don't think it would be unreasonable to apply that to him.

I also think Greenleaf1 is on the money, vesting option becomes player option in exchange for him waiving his no-trade rights. Very safe to assume a team will have to pay him 22 million in 2020 if he's traded.

Assuming he's a 1.2 WAR the rest of this season, a 1.9 WAR in 2018, a 1.4 WAR in 2019 and a 0.9 WAR in 2020, it would put his value at right around 51 million but he's due to make 92 million. So I have him as a negative 41 million surplus value...so at a minimum the Tigers would have to eat 40 million of the deal before I'd even be willing to talk about any prospects. Needless to say, if I called the Tigers and asked them to pick up 40 million dollars of the contract I would definitely expect them to hang up. But that's just how I value him. If folks out there think he'll bounce back and be a legitimate 3.2+ WAR pitcher over the next few seasons then he's worth giving up a few quality prospects for.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#16

Posted: June 28, 2017, 7:31 PM Post
Posts: 1362
For me, too early in rebuild for trade like this. With or without Verlander we are not a World Series contender yet. I know playoffs are exciting and all but this team needs more than Verlander to move to next tier. Stick to plan. Maybe add solid reliever or two for a reasonable price and see what happens.

3 months ago we were hoping Brewers would just win at least 70 games maybe 75. Don't think we are to point to ditch the rebuild plan just for the hope to hold off Cubs for playoff spot. Maybe this time next season will be different story... hopefully but not now.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#17

Posted: June 28, 2017, 8:12 PM Post
Posts: 6397
Location: Kenosha, WI
I wouldn't trade for Verlander in his current state ever.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#18

Posted: June 28, 2017, 8:58 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4613
MrTPlush said:
Greenleaf1 said:
He was 2nd in CYA voting as recently as last year. I'd say he still has some production left in him.


Easy to say when you aren't the one dropping $28mil a year for him. It is a giant risk to take on that much money at his age and with all the innings pitched.

The Brewers payroll this year is $60M. They could easily take that on.

The more money they take on, the less in prospects they have to give up. Seems like a win-win.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#19

Posted: June 28, 2017, 10:33 PM Post
Posts: 1251
My gut says Phillips is untradeable (his value to us) and it would be Brinson that I would send. That being said I think those proposals are rich for a 34 year old with a ton of mileage, but if they wanted mid level type(s) i'd give it a thought at least. We still would need to trade for a reliever or two in that scenario though.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#20

Posted: June 29, 2017, 8:26 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 433
Usually when I think of these threads, people tend to hound the OP for not offering enough for an established player. If Verlander could be had for less than those packages, all the more reason to see if we can go out and get him.

Or, potentially better, if that package gets us another $10-$20M in salary relief from the Tigers, that could work in our favor too.

With Garza coming off the books (at least most of his $12.5M anyways), take $10M of that and apply it to Verlander and we're only spending another $14M a year for him on top of where we're at now. If the Tigers throw in $17.5M, that's $5M/year off for his last 3.5 years, and now you've got Verlander on your team for only an extra $9M/year over Matt Garza.

Even in the worst case scenario of Verlander being a complete bust, the Brewers could make that money work. More likely you get an innings eater who's capable of a lot more than that.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next  [ 132 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test