LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  [ 89 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Justin Verlander

Author Message
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#21

Posted: June 29, 2017, 8:45 AM Post
Posts: 337
Location: Madison, WI
Greenleaf1 said:
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.



That's because 99.9% of the time the discussion involves a player in arbitration that has something like 1.5 to 2 years of team control left. 34 year old pitchers still due 92 million dollars aren't discussed very often on Brewer message boards.

I still think for this to make any sense at all from the Brewer's perspective, the Tigers would need to pick up 40+ million dollars of that salary and I seriously doubt they'd be willing to do that.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#22

Posted: June 29, 2017, 9:20 AM Post
Posts: 5682
Location: Kenosha, WI
LouisEly said:
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.


Using that logic why don't we just wait until the offseason and sign some guy to a 3/$150mil deal in the offseason. It will fit in the payroll of course and he will be gone before it causes any payroll concerns. Then the player hits free agency again and we get him for his last prime years.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#23

Posted: July 01, 2017, 9:09 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1094
MrTPlush said:

Using that logic why don't we just wait until the offseason and sign some guy to a 3/$150mil deal in the offseason. It will fit in the payroll of course and he will be gone before it causes any payroll concerns. Then the player hits free agency again and we get him for his last prime years.


Because we are in 1st place RIGHT NOW and have at least 1 hole in our starting rotation?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#24

Posted: July 10, 2017, 10:10 AM Post
Posts: 1188
Oxy said:
MrTPlush said:

Using that logic why don't we just wait until the offseason and sign some guy to a 3/$150mil deal in the offseason. It will fit in the payroll of course and he will be gone before it causes any payroll concerns. Then the player hits free agency again and we get him for his last prime years.


Because we are in 1st place RIGHT NOW and have at least 1 hole in our starting rotation?


I see one hole in the rotation (Guerra) and one guy I am keeping an eye on (Davies) and one guy that I plain don't trust to remain healthy/productive for the long haul even though he will have a shortened season (Garza).

But I see options to replace all three if need be. Suter currently here, Anderson when off the DL, Woodruff when he gets healthy and if then if need be Hader/Blazek get stretched out again, with Jungmann a AAA option.

If I knew I was down to using Hader/Blazek in the rotation, I would inquire with Detroit, but would not give up more than an OF (and that is with salary kickin by Tigers). Verlander hasn't shown any coming around in the last month. Too bad Jordan Zimmerman fell apart.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#25

Posted: July 10, 2017, 11:14 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 963
JosephC said:
Greenleaf1 said:
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.



That's because 99.9% of the time the discussion involves a player in arbitration that has something like 1.5 to 2 years of team control left. 34 year old pitchers still due 92 million dollars aren't discussed very often on Brewer message boards.

I still think for this to make any sense at all from the Brewer's perspective, the Tigers would need to pick up 40+ million dollars of that salary and I seriously doubt they'd be willing to do that.


$92 million is a bit misleading.

He's got ~$60 million left. He'd basically be signed to a 2 year, $56 million deal after this one. We could probably get the Tigers to kick in $5-10 million to pay off this season if we were so inclined.

He does have a 2020 vesting option which probably is where you got the $92 million figure, but he'd have to be a top 5 Cy Young candidate to have that vest. If that's the case, I'd take him for 2020 on the Brewers at $22 million and call the trade for the previous years a win. If it seriously vested and the Brewers were strapped for cash trying to sign extensions for their young players going into 2020, somebody would take a previous year top 5 Cy Young candidate regardless of age on a 1-year, $22 million deal in that offseason. They'd probably even give a prospect.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#26

Posted: July 10, 2017, 11:19 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 963
This is what I'd be curious about and there may be an answer from Verlander or the medical staff. This is Verlander's slider velocity chart, which pretty much directly correlates to ERA/FIP/xFIP over that time.

The fastball has oddly been increasing over the past calendar year.

Image


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#27

Posted: July 10, 2017, 11:39 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 963
Going for 3 posts in a row here (all slightly different topics).

I do wonder what Tigers ownership wants now that Ilitch has passed away.

It's quite possible that the Tigers just let Verlander sit around unless somebody offers prospects plus takes on some or all of the contract. If they're looking to rebuild, they can pretty much just write off 2018 and 2019 so if nobody is offering prospects, if ownership is OK with a $140 million payroll next year, they can do it.

In 2020 all they'd have left is:
Miggy @ 3 years/$90 million
Upton @ 2 years/$45 million
Zimmermann @1 year/$25 million

Ilitch put them in a pretty big future hole but they might just want to wait on almost all of these guys since almost all of them do not hold any value and have huge contracts.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#28

Posted: July 20, 2017, 12:57 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5103
Brewers supposedly showing interest in Verlander:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/07/ ... igers.html


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#29

Posted: July 20, 2017, 1:00 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 346
Time to resurrect this thread: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/07/ ... igers.html

Looks like Astros and Brewers are interested in a Verlander/Justin Wilson package, which would be very interesting in my opinion. Adding Wilson might justify the Brewers including some real prospects in the deal, and the Brewers could fill 2 areas of need in one trade. Especially interesting package now that this article says the Tigers may be willing to include some money along with Verlander.

After that JD Martinez trade, if I were Stearns I'd be calling up Detroit immediately because that return looked pretty light and it may be an indicator that the Tigers might be prime for the fleecing.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#30

Posted: July 20, 2017, 1:05 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 7834
Verlander days of a bone a fide stud are over pass


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#31

Posted: July 20, 2017, 1:21 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1493
I guess if we are only giving up money I would be interested


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#32

Posted: July 20, 2017, 1:50 PM Post
Posts: 135
Location: La Crosse
brewmann04 said:
Verlander days of a bone a fide stud are over pass

While I agree, don't forget he was the runner up to the Cy Young last year.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#33

Posted: July 20, 2017, 2:01 PM Post
Posts: 2671
I'm all for getting Verlander as long as we don't have to trade Brinson, Phillips, Dubon, Hader, Woodruff or Burnes for him

The David Stearns era: Controllable Young Talent. Watch the Jedi work his magic!


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#34

Posted: July 20, 2017, 2:02 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 841
brewmann04 said:
Verlander days of a bone a fide stud are over pass


True, but that's also the reason he could be available. If the Tigers were to take on 7-8 million per season and include Wilson in a deal I could see giving something of value to pull something together.

Verlander hasn't lost the velocity yet so that's encouraging at least. It's his control that's left him. There are a lot of obstacles to clear to make something happen with him but you never know.

It'd be an interesting acquisition provided (like any other deal) we don't overpay. I'm assuming the price has escalated on Gray and perhaps they've moved on.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#35

Posted: July 20, 2017, 2:16 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2570
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?




8 Mile vs. Mr. Baseball.

yes.

Posted: July 10, 2014, 12:30 AM
PrinceFielderx1 Said:
If the Brewers don't win the division I should be banned. However, they will.


Last visited: September 03, 2014, 7:10 PM


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#36

Posted: July 20, 2017, 2:26 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5103
Verlander - as an asset - is essentially underwater.

He's due another $10-12M or so for 2017. He's due $28M for 2018 and 2019. That's $68-70M.

I guess the question is, if Justin Verlander was a free agent right now, what annual salary would you give him on a contract that goes through 2019? $10M? $15M $20M?

It certainly wouldn't be $28M. I'm guessing someone would give him 1/2 that - so $14M or so. That's just a guess.

I realize the excellent 2016 is really enticing - but in reality, Verlander has been pretty mediocre (other than 2016).

His Fangraphs WAR the last few years goes as follows:

2014: 2.9
2015: 2.9
2016: 5.2
2017: 1.7 (thus far)

Baseball Reference has Verlander's WAR to at 1.1, 2.2, 6.6 and 1.1 - so quite a bit worse than Fangraphs.

Even if you overpay Verlander a bit - just on the outside chance he can regain his 2016 form - the Tigers would still have to include at least $25M or so (or equivalent assets). And we wouldn't be giving up anything of real value to make the deal.

The whole no-trade clause that Verlander has further muddies the situation.

I doubt the Crew really is that interested in him (but you never know). In reality, it's probably just playing the field. Stearns is asking about any starter - signaling to the A's (and other clubs) that we can look elsewhere if you ask too much.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#37

Posted: July 20, 2017, 2:35 PM Post
Posts: 96
reillymcshane said:
Verlander - as an asset - is essentially underwater.

He's due another $10-12M or so for 2017. He's due $28M for 2018 and 2019. That's $68-70M.

I guess the question is, if Justin Verlander was a free agent right now, what annual salary would you give him on a contract that goes through 2019? $10M? $15M $20M?

It certainly wouldn't be $28M. I'm guessing someone would give him 1/2 that - so $14M or so. That's just a guess.

I realize the excellent 2016 is really enticing - but in reality, Verlander has been pretty mediocre (other than 2016).

His Fangraphs WAR the last few years goes as follows:

2014: 2.9
2015: 2.9
2016: 5.2
2017: 1.7 (thus far)

Baseball Reference has Verlander's WAR to at 1.1, 2.2, 6.6 and 1.1 - so quite a bit worse than Fangraphs.

Even if you overpay Verlander a bit - just on the outside chance he can regain his 2016 form - the Tigers would still have to include at least $25M or so (or equivalent assets). And we wouldn't be giving up anything of real value to make the deal.

The whole no-trade clause that Verlander has further muddies the situation.

I doubt the Crew really is that interested in him (but you never know). In reality, it's probably just playing the field. Stearns is asking about any starter - signaling to the A's (and other clubs) that we can look elsewhere if you ask too much.


Agreed with all of this. But with how small our payroll is, why not try to package Verlander with a reliever like Wilson, agree to take on a lot of Verlander's salary, and thus lessen the quality of prospects needed to get the deal done. That way we add a potentially great SP, a very good reliever, and keep our farm system intact.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#38

Posted: July 20, 2017, 2:45 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 16704
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/07/ ... l#comments

Recommend reading the comments if you want to laugh.

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#39

Posted: July 20, 2017, 2:45 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2324
Location: California
mattyo said:
Agreed with all of this. But with how small our payroll is, why not try to package Verlander with a reliever like Wilson, agree to take on a lot of Verlander's salary, and thus lessen the quality of prospects needed to get the deal done. That way we add a potentially great SP, a very good reliever, and keep our farm system intact.

This. For 2017, if the Brewers are to acquire a possible TOR arm, I would much rather take on salary and keep top prospects that it would take to acquire a Gray. Taking on a substantial amount of Verlander's salary should not preclude the Brewers from making other moves if need be given most of the Brewers position players are pre-arbitration or have cost control.

Verlander and taking on salary or Gray and giving up to prospects...I'll take Verlander.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Justin Verlander
#40

Posted: July 20, 2017, 2:55 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1493
Warning Track Power said:
mattyo said:
Agreed with all of this. But with how small our payroll is, why not try to package Verlander with a reliever like Wilson, agree to take on a lot of Verlander's salary, and thus lessen the quality of prospects needed to get the deal done. That way we add a potentially great SP, a very good reliever, and keep our farm system intact.

This. For 2017, if the Brewers are to acquire a possible TOR arm, I would much rather take on salary and keep top prospects that it would take to acquire a Gray. Taking on a substantial amount of Verlander's salary should not preclude the Brewers from making other moves if need be given most of the Brewers position players are pre-arbitration or have cost control.

Verlander and taking on salary or Gray and giving up to prospects...I'll take Verlander.


This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. You guys just said it better.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  [ 89 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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