LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page 1, 2  Next  [ 22 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible

Author Message
Offline  Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#1

Posted: September 11, 2017, 5:34 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 611
With a need to replace Nelson for the rest of 2017 and possibly part of 2018, it could make sense to make a trade, even though the pitcher received would not be eligible for the postseason. A type of candidate I have in mind is James Shields, who becomes a free agent after 2018. Obviously there's a question on whether he's any better than Jungmann or even Garza; plus the White Sox would need to pick up at least 75% of his $21 million 2018 salary. Are there other, more logical choices?

Note that the Twins are so desperate for a 5th starter that I could even see the Brewers be willing to make Garza available to a team that actually wants him.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#2

Posted: September 11, 2017, 8:37 AM Post
Posts: 428
Location: Madison, WI
It's not a crazy idea. The off days couldn't have fallen at worse times, I don't think it allow the Brewers to skip the fifth starter so it's probably likely that Garza will get four starts (unless he bombs so bad in starts 1 and 2 that the Brewers go to someone like Jungmann for the last couple starts).

I had given up Matt Moore for dead earlier in the year but since the All-Star break he's posted a pretty respectable 4.20 ERA, 1.18 WHIP and 3.06 K/BB ratio. Would have to think with his poor first half that he was already put on waivers and cleared. If this was the last year of his deal the Brewers might have been able to just buy him from San Francisco. But instead he has a 9 million option for 2018 (1 million buyout) and then a 10 million option for 2019 (0.75 million buyout)...and with the way he's pitched in the second half the Giants may have been planning on picking up the 2018 option. He just isn't that good of a pitcher anymore, and it could be debated that he's not significantly better than Matt Garza (although the K/BB ratio since the All-Star break tells me that he has way more upside than Garza does). Over the last three season, the average WAR (between Baseball Reference and Fangraphs) for Moore is 0.8 (2015), 1.55 (2016), 0.7 (2017)...so roughly he is a 1 WAR pitcher which would put his value right in the area of the salaries of the option years. So the price should not be very high if the Giants would be open to trading him. Personally I would be hesitant to make this trade more because I wouldn't want to make a 9 million dollar investment in him next season, and I'm really not a fan of trading for him for only 4 starts and no possibility of seeing him in post-season. But of all the candidates that I could find, I do think Moore is the most attractive.

Marco Estrada is not controlled beyond this season but at this point it's pretty likely the Brewers could just buy him from the Blue Jays. Estrada did throw 7 innings of shutout ball at Boston in his last start, but just prior to that he had been pretty bad (5.35 ERA and 1.47 WHIP in August).

Not a fan of James Shields at all. Like Estrada he had a good outing his last time out (1 earned run in 7 innings against the Giants), but overall this year he has not been good. Since the All-Star break he has a 5.66 ERA and 1.45 WHIP. Next year will be his age 36 season. I'd want no part of him even if the White Sox would pick up 75% of his remaining money.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#3

Posted: September 11, 2017, 9:16 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 588
So is the current rotation plan Anderson, Davies, Woodruff, Suter and 5th starter ? (either Garza, Guerra, Jungmann, etc.)

It's a tough call for sure but I wouldn't be against giving Jungmann a crack at it. I think a young guy would be more motivated to pitch well to salvage his career at this point than an old guy who's salvaging the twilight of his.

As a Brewer fan, I don't think I can stomach another Garza start this season.

In hindsight, a Sonny Gray acquisition and the rotation depth it would have provided sure could have given the Brewers the couple of wins they are going to fall short of a playoff spot.

Hopefully a young GM will learn from his mistake.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#4

Posted: September 11, 2017, 10:28 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 66
A Swing and A Drive said:
So is the current rotation plan Anderson, Davies, Woodruff, Suter and 5th starter ? (either Garza, Guerra, Jungmann, etc.)

It's a tough call for sure but I wouldn't be against giving Jungmann a crack at it. I think a young guy would be more motivated to pitch well to salvage his career at this point than an old guy who's salvaging the twilight of his.

As a Brewer fan, I don't think I can stomach another Garza start this season.

In hindsight, a Sonny Gray acquisition and the rotation depth it would have provided sure could have given the Brewers the couple of wins they are going to fall short of a playoff spot.

Hopefully a young GM will learn from his mistake.


OMG, this again? By all accounts, Beane wanted Brinson+ or bust for Gray. There are still 19 games left, and the team is right in the thick of things. How about showing a little faith before writing them off as being done?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#5

Posted: September 11, 2017, 10:52 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 588
By all accounts ?????

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/08/rosenthals-latest-blue-jays-white-sox-brewers-gray.html

According to Ken Rosenthal's report, "the A’s would have accepted a package of other prospects from the Brewers" and the Brewers not wanting to include Brinson was not a deal breaker.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#6

Posted: September 11, 2017, 12:10 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 66
A Swing and A Drive said:
By all accounts ?????

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/08/rosenthals-latest-blue-jays-white-sox-brewers-gray.html

According to Ken Rosenthal's report, "the A’s would have accepted a package of other prospects from the Brewers" and the Brewers not wanting to include Brinson was not a deal breaker.


You have no idea who. Would you have given up Woodruff and/or Hader? The package the Yankees gave up is the equivalent of the Brewers trading Ray (although Fowler is closer to Brinson than Ray numbers-wise), Diaz and one of Burnes/Woodruff/Hader for him.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#7

Posted: September 11, 2017, 12:33 PM Post
Posts: 3838
Yeah it's all about who it would have taken to get Gray but it doesn't appear as though it would have taken Brinson. I happily would have given up Woodruff Diaz and Ray. But having Gray in the rotation right now would sure look nice.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#8

Posted: September 11, 2017, 12:52 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5660
paul253 said:
Yeah it's all about who it would have taken to get Gray but it doesn't appear as though it would have taken Brinson. I happily would have given up Woodruff Diaz and Ray. But having Gray in the rotation right now would sure look nice.


Have you seen what Woodruff has done so far this season?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#9

Posted: September 11, 2017, 3:27 PM Post
Posts: 3838
Have you seen what Woodruff has done so far this season


Well at the time he hadn't done that so it's hard to look at what he's done now when considering whether or not to trade him a month and a half ago. I highly doubt he's a sub 2 ERA pitcher and once he gets more starts his numbers will go up a bit.

And don't get me wrong. I didn't WANT to trade Woodruff. But you have to give something up to get something. Sonny Gray has been damn good since the Yankees got him and he's got a much better track record than Woodruff does. Ideally you could have kept all your top pitching prospects and still gotten Gray but we all know that wasn't going to happen. I guess I would have preferred we traded Hader rather than Ortiz Woodruff or Burnes simply because I don't see Hader as a starting pitcher. But at that time if Oakland would have taken Diaz Ray and Woodruff for Gray I would have said yes.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#10

Posted: September 11, 2017, 4:08 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 588
Gray's stock was at a buy low point when he was traded this July and is likely to go up.

Sonny could have been a Brewer for 2 seasons and we could have STILL have traded him the deadline before he's a FA and gotten as much or more than we gave up.

Missed opportunity IMO.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#11

Posted: September 11, 2017, 4:30 PM Post
Posts: 9986
A Swing and A Drive said:
Gray's stock was at a buy low point when he was traded this July and is likely to go up.

Sonny could have been a Brewer for 2 seasons and we could have STILL have traded him the deadline before he's a FA and gotten as much or more than we gave up.

Missed opportunity IMO.


Woodruff is going to be a Brewer for 6 seasons. If they could have gotten the deal done without Brinson but not without Woodruff, would you have still wanted to make the deal? Even knowing now what Woodruff has done since then and therefore Gray would have likely been worth no additional wins this year?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#12

Posted: September 11, 2017, 5:34 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 905
paul253 said:
Have you seen what Woodruff has done so far this season
Well at the time he hadn't done that so it's hard to look at what he's done now when considering whether or not to trade him a month and a half ago.

But that's what the Gray "fans" are doing. Where are the people that were clamoring to give up the farm for Quintana or Wilson? If Gray was putting up Quintana or Wilson numbers for the Yankees, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I wasn't a fan if making the trade at the time and I'm still fine with the decision. I may be proven wrong but I want to see what we have in Hader, Woodruff, Burnes and Ortiz. I think we would have had to give up two of that group if Brinson was off the table.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#13

Posted: September 11, 2017, 6:14 PM Post
Posts: 3838
Where are the people that were clamoring to give up the farm for Quintana or Wilson


Probably hiding in the same place that the people who were claiming Gray is a 4 at best are hiding.

And to be clear, nobody EVER suggesting giving up "the farm" for anyone. Not Quintana. Not Gray. Nobody. We had enough quality prospects that could be traded while still maintaining a decent system. People are acting like we were offering up Brinson Hader Burnes and Ray to get a pitcher and that's simply not true.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#14

Posted: September 11, 2017, 6:19 PM Post
Posts: 3838
If they could have gotten the deal done without Brinson but not without Woodruff, would you have still wanted to make the deal


Right now? I'd say no but it's close. I'd rather have Gray in the rotation right now than Woodruff but Woodruff is certainly pitching well enough to say otherwise.

Now if it were Ortiz instead of Woodruff then yes. Next year? Who knows. But at the time I'd still have done Woodruff Ray and Diaz for Gray. No doubt in my mind that at that time it would have been the right move.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#15

Posted: September 11, 2017, 6:20 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 905
paul253 said:
And to be clear, nobody EVER suggesting giving up "the farm" for anyone.

Ok, maybe I used a bit of hyperbole but I wasn't interested in giving up Brinson+ or 2 of the pitchers I mentioned above+ for Gray. I may be proven wrong but I didn't want that trade then and I'm still fine with the decision after seeing how it's panned out for 6 weeks.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#16

Posted: September 11, 2017, 6:32 PM Post
Posts: 428
Location: Madison, WI
How about putting the Sonny Gray stuff in the following:

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=35672&start=60

and keeping this thread on it's original topic?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#17

Posted: September 11, 2017, 9:24 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 66
JosephC said:
How about putting the Sonny Gray stuff in the following:

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=35672&start=60

and keeping this thread on it's original topic?


Or how about just giving up the Gray stuff altogether? Enough already! We get it. You think it was a missed opportunity, and you think Sterns made a mistake because he's young. Not you, Joseph. The Gray guys in this thread. The gift of hindsight is a great one.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#18

Posted: September 13, 2017, 1:47 AM Post
Posts: 259
A Swing and A Drive said:
So is the current rotation plan Anderson, Davies, Woodruff, Suter and 5th starter ? (either Garza, Guerra, Jungmann, etc.)

It's a tough call for sure but I wouldn't be against giving Jungmann a crack at it. I think a young guy would be more motivated to pitch well to salvage his career at this point than an old guy who's salvaging the twilight of his.

As a Brewer fan, I don't think I can stomach another Garza start this season.

In hindsight, a Sonny Gray acquisition and the rotation depth it would have provided sure could have given the Brewers the couple of wins they are going to fall short of a playoff spot.

Hopefully a young GM will learn from his mistake.


I see no mistake. The way I look at it we dodged a bullet NOT giving up premier talent like a Burnes or even Ponce and a couple other guys just on the off chance the Cubs continued to play poorly and we picked it up.

And now with Nelson out, I'm that much happier that we didn't waste any assets on a trade. No Nelson means no chance in the playoffs. Lets say we got Gray for "just" Peralta, Phillips, Diaz and Ray. We still have to make the playoffs and then we're going into them with Gray, Anderson and Davies. That's just not good enough to beat the Dodgers or Nats, even with their struggles/injuries.

As great as it would have been/would be to sneak into the playoffs this year, I don't think we really ever had a chance to make a real run in the playoffs. So...I feel the same now as I did at the deadline. Glad we didn't trade away talent for guys who weren't gonna put us over the edge.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#19

Posted: September 13, 2017, 1:52 AM Post
Posts: 259
JosephC said:
It's not a crazy idea. The off days couldn't have fallen at worse times, I don't think it allow the Brewers to skip the fifth starter so it's probably likely that Garza will get four starts (unless he bombs so bad in starts 1 and 2 that the Brewers go to someone like Jungmann for the last couple starts).

I had given up Matt Moore for dead earlier in the year but since the All-Star break he's posted a pretty respectable 4.20 ERA, 1.18 WHIP and 3.06 K/BB ratio. Would have to think with his poor first half that he was already put on waivers and cleared. If this was the last year of his deal the Brewers might have been able to just buy him from San Francisco. But instead he has a 9 million option for 2018 (1 million buyout) and then a 10 million option for 2019 (0.75 million buyout)...and with the way he's pitched in the second half the Giants may have been planning on picking up the 2018 option. He just isn't that good of a pitcher anymore, and it could be debated that he's not significantly better than Matt Garza (although the K/BB ratio since the All-Star break tells me that he has way more upside than Garza does). Over the last three season, the average WAR (between Baseball Reference and Fangraphs) for Moore is 0.8 (2015), 1.55 (2016), 0.7 (2017)...so roughly he is a 1 WAR pitcher which would put his value right in the area of the salaries of the option years. So the price should not be very high if the Giants would be open to trading him. Personally I would be hesitant to make this trade more because I wouldn't want to make a 9 million dollar investment in him next season, and I'm really not a fan of trading for him for only 4 starts and no possibility of seeing him in post-season. But of all the candidates that I could find, I do think Moore is the most attractive.

Marco Estrada is not controlled beyond this season but at this point it's pretty likely the Brewers could just buy him from the Blue Jays. Estrada did throw 7 innings of shutout ball at Boston in his last start, but just prior to that he had been pretty bad (5.35 ERA and 1.47 WHIP in August).

Not a fan of James Shields at all. Like Estrada he had a good outing his last time out (1 earned run in 7 innings against the Giants), but overall this year he has not been good. Since the All-Star break he has a 5.66 ERA and 1.45 WHIP. Next year will be his age 36 season. I'd want no part of him even if the White Sox would pick up 75% of his remaining money.



Moore would be perfect for me and a guy I'd be willing to give up a decent package for. Ortiz+Phillips maybe? I don't know how we matchup with them, but he's a talented lefty with good stuff and cheap(relatively speaking) and controllable for the next two years.

I did just read that the Giants were almost certainly going to pick up Moore's options because A-They'd invested a bit into him and B-They think they can bounce back next year and that HE will bounce back next year.

Guessing if the Giants will win a WS or lose 90 is like flipping a coin, but I would definitely be happy to get Moore for this year and the future. I've always been a fan. You'd have to really be confident he'd not only bounce back, but reach some of that upside though.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Starting pitcher - not postseason eligible
#20

Posted: September 13, 2017, 6:58 AM Post
Posts: 428
Location: Madison, WI
If the Giants really think Moore is a great investment at 9 million and aren't really motivated to trade him, then I'd have no interest. Definitely wouldn't be willing to trade Ortiz OR Phillips for him. Was thinking more along the line of a couple fringe prospects. Moore had a decent 2016 and has been good towards the end of 2017, but his overall numbers from 2015-2017 are as follows: 4.75 ERA, 4.45 FIP, 86 ERA+, 1.40 WHIP covering 424 innings. There are some things that make Moore appear more attractive than his current ERA. His K/BB ratio has been very good in the second half of this season. Last year he had a very respectable 4.08 ERA and his BABIP number was .285 which is right around an average number. This season the BABIP number is .316 which may play a factor in the poor ERA (note, current season ERA is 5.31 but FIP is 4.66). On the negative side, he's had a real dip in fastball velocity. Last year was 93.7, this year is at 92.4. But interestingly, it appears his velocity has dropped over the later part of the season but his performance has actually improved. I can't blame the Giants for wanting to keep him, especially with a possible Cueto opt-out looming. But if trading for Moore, I really don't see him as a great value with a 9 million dollar salary and I personally wouldn't be willing to give up any substantial value to obtain him.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page 1, 2  Next  [ 22 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rickh150 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:  
cron
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test