Should the Brewers trade John Axford?

[viaarete]

Selling the closer is a classic move used by small-salary teams to rake in prospects. With Braddock serving as a potential replacement, a much-depleted farm system, and Axford's incredible stats this year (especially the perfect 13/13 saves) a trade somewhere down the line seems very tempting.

Closers, generally speaking, should not be hard to come by; getting three outs in high-leverage situations is not so rare a commodity as it often seems. Axford, right now, has the potential to be one of the best closers in the game. Is it worth more to Milwaukee to keep him on the staff as a closer for the remainder of his contract (the specs of which I don't have), or to try and get even higher value for his services through trades?

Personally, I find myself almost squarely on the fence on this. I love Axford closing games for us, I think his stuff is very good for a young pitcher (he's 27), and the mustache is pretty incredible. On the flip side, I'm looking at our farm system and wondering where the next crop of bats is going to come from. The [hopeful] trades of Hart and Fielder are often talked about in terms of the young arms they can bring in; maybe trading Axford in the next year or two can bring the next generation of young position players with good hitting potential. Of course, there's always the potential that the trade leaves us unable to close out close games which, as we saw earlier this season, can be damning. So, yeah, squarely on the fence for me.

[Oldcity]

It's certainly worth shopping him around to see if he has good value. He might not yet.

[DougJones43]

I would say definitely not for the immediate future. If we trade our cheap young bullpen arms, the result will be over-spending on guys like Eric Gagne, LaTroy Hawkins, Trevor Hoffman, etc. I'll pass on that idea.

[CheezWizHed]

Closers, generally speaking, should not be hard to come by;

 

You are correct. Whomever is the last pitcher is your closer. They are easy to find. However, good closers are hard to come by and normally expensive, as DJ43 just mentioned.

 

One thing we absolutely, positively NOT be doing is selling our high talent youngsters. We are finally getting into a situation where at least our BP can be filled with live-armed cheap, talented youngsters. (Axford, Braddock, Stetter, Dillard, Kintzler...).

 

Unless you are sure that Axford is going to go all Turnbow on us, no way do you trade him now...

[molitor fan]

Just want to note that Braddock, who has a very troubling history of arm woes, has been shut down indefinitely with arm fatigue....Braddock needs to be viewed as the cherry on the sundae and not relied on in my view.

[JohnBriggs12]

If you had July 23rd in the first thread about trading Axford, you're a winner!

 

Why is it every time a Brewer performs better than expectations for a month or two, the first thought is "what can we get for him"? I'll take Sept. 24th for the first thread suggesting trading Lorenzo Cain.

 

Of course the answer is always never as much as you might think.

 

Teams look at guys who've done it over a short period with skepticism, especially so if you make it known you're shopping the guy.

 

Look Axford's cheap and effective. Teams like the Brewers need cheap and effective players no matter what role.

[crossface21]

The Brewers have had 8 different closers since 2000, and a new one each year since 2006-Wickman, Leskanic, DeJean, Kolb, Turnbow, Cordero, Torres, Hoffman, and Axford. Granted, each one of these guys had varying amounts of success, but I am on board with not playing the guessing game of who the closer is going to be next year or the year after. Axford is cheap now and will be for a few more years. As someone else statee-unless he goes Turnbow on us-I think you definitely keep him.

[greeg35]

I understand the concept that teams tend to overvalue the "closer" label and therefore we may be able to get back more than a player would normally be worth if he is labelled as such. Any time you could trade a person for more than their real value, you should consider it, so I think its a valid question. However, the brewers overvalue closers as much as everyone else does, so it's not happening.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

I'm not sure Braddock is the closer...has had arm issues & control probs. Also a lefty...rather have a righty as the closer.

 

Axford is cost controlled for years. After blowing countless dollars on closers and wannabe closers, let's hope Ax can keep it up. Trade him 5 years from now when he's close to FA and someone needs an arm for the stretch drive. Knock on wood he's still that valuable by then.

[davego]

I do like how Ken has used Ax in more then the 1-inning role.

 

I'm with JB12 on this one. We sort of need cheap players that can perform a bit. If Ax keeps this up and now it's the year 2012, then maybe deal.

[YoungGeezy]

Yeah sell off the (kinda) young closer, that we pretty much pay nothing for over the next 2-5 years.... makes sense. Not to mention he has no track record of major league success so to believe some team will give us a trade that would improve our team for the "Axman" after 3 months of good baseball is just crazy. Even with Hoffman's horrible start and Hawkins injury, they both hold higher trade value than Axford. So there is no reason to trade away a young cheap closer when he could get equally or more for trading and older much more expensive reliever.

 

I don't know if Axford's future will be at closer or a set man or even just another arm in the pen but with him being a fairly reliable cheap option, there is no reason at all to trade him even if teams do over value closers. Think about it, we trade a reliable pitcher we pay I believe the league minimum for and will then will end up and overpaying on a FA pitcher in the off-season...isn't that what we want to get away from. Wouldn't we prefer to just go with cheap homegrown pitchers to get the job done over overpayed FA? I don't know, trading Axford seems to make no sense to me at all, may just be me.

[JohnBriggs12]

This has nothing to with trading Axford, but it finally occurred to me just who Axford reminds me of and that's Jim Kern. Back in the day, Kern had some of the best stuff around and what a workhorse. In 1979, Kern had an incredible year. He pitched, get this, 143 innings in relief, was 13-5 with a 1.57 ERA, and 29 saves.

 

Kern at his peak may have had a couple more MPH on his fastball than Axford has, but they had very similar builds and similar stuff.

[RockCoCougars]

Team management needs to be focused more on firing as opposed to trading at this point- especially trading a rookie who has been one of the few bright spots this season. I think we are getting a little carried away with this "sell high" craziness when we are talking about trading a rookie closer who's been perfect in save opportunities. Prospects are no guarantee, folks.

[greeg35]

So, theoretically, if a team offered more than you think Axford is worth you would not consider it?

 

Being young, effective, cheap, and under control does have a lot of value independent of the closer label, so it would have to be a knock-out offer.

[davego]

Jim Kern had an awsome beard.

[monty57]

This will play out in a few years, as our current A-ballers get through the system. About the time Axford's getting expensive, many of the guys currently starting in the low minors will have maxed their potential as MLB relievers. We should have some young pre-arby arms to fill in the pen, and hopefully Axford will have a solid reputation as a reliable closer, so we will be able to trade him around year 2 of arby for a good haul of talent.

[Thurston Fluff]

Pretty much any player who is performing well and under control for more than next season should be playing for us not bringing us the next batch of guys we trade when they are ready to help us.

I never bought into the trade when the value is high philosophy. If we did that the Brewers roster would be full of under achievers, unproven rookies or guys who will never be good enough for the big stage every season. The only time I think we should trade our guys is when we have a replacement for the guy or when he is about to leave anyway.

As far as the depleted offensive player in minor league system goes I don't think it's all that depleted. We have some guys like Cain, Gamel and Lawrie still in the minors to go with the handful of good young talent already on the major league roster. By the time all those guys hit their FA years we will have the next batch ready.

[joepepsi]

If you had July 23rd in the first thread about trading Axford, you're a winner!

 

Why is it every time a Brewer performs better than expectations for a month or two, the first thought is "what can we get for him"? I'll take Sept. 24th for the first thread suggesting trading Lorenzo Cain.

I think the attitude comes from a fan base used to decades of losing, and payroll limitations.

[CheezWizHed]

So, theoretically, if a team offered more than you think Axford is worth you would not consider it?

 

Do we really have to go there? For the record, if a Genie granted me 3 wishes, my third wish would be for 3 more wishes. If we can get King Felix for Axford, yes, I trade him.

 

Now, back to reality. What do the Brewers need the most? Young, talented, cheap pitching. Wish granted, you have Axford, why trade him for something when he embodies what we need (knowing that no one is going to offer you someone cheaper, or younger, or a higher ceiling).

 

Sorry if this is kind of snarky. Of course, no one is untouchable. But lets weed out the unlikely "what ifs" and try to deal with the probable at least.

[greeg35]

If we are only talking about what is probable there wouldn't even be a thread about this. And if people are going to pull out the "there's no way I would even consider it" card, then yes I think we do have to go there. I've seen the backlash against the "sell high" attitude here, and I understand that; but selling high should always be part of the discussion IMO...it just realistically would not be done nearly as often as it is brought up.

[GB12]

The Brewers have had 8 different closers since 2000, and a new one each year since 2006-Wickman, Leskanic, DeJean, Kolb, Turnbow, Cordero, Torres, Hoffman, and Axford. Granted, each one of these guys had varying amounts of success, but I am on board with not playing the guessing game of who the closer is going to be next year or the year after. Axford is cheap now and will be for a few more years. As someone else statee-unless he goes Turnbow on us-I think you definitely keep him.

5 of those 8 closers were all stars with the Brewers, although you forgot Gagne.

[joepepsi]

If you sell high on every player, especially those which are cheap and you have control over, then your team is in constant rebuilding mode and will never get any better.

[And That]

If we can get great value for Axford, sure, you trade him. But who is going to give us great value for a dude with 14 career saves and 37.2 big league innings?

[kramnoj]

Is it worth more to Milwaukee to keep him on the staff as a closer for the remainder of his contract (the specs of which I don't have)

 

The Brewers will have Axford for at least 5 years beyond this one. Looking at service time, the Brewers may even get another year. He had 28 days of service time coming into this season, and was in the minors until May 14th this year.

 

I don't know what it would take to give up Axford. Is there a team desperate enough for a bullpen arm that they will give up a good SP candidate? Sure, if the Red Sox felt the need to give away one of their AA SP that is ranked by BA, I would probably do it.

[mletto157]

Trade Ryan Braun! He's worth way more than we're paying him! His value is way up there!

 

On a more serious note... obviously if someone offers you a crazy deal; you would be a fool not to consider/take it. However, under normal circumstances, since most GM's aren't quite as stupid as they were 10 years ago, you keep him and hope he keeps this up. Having a closer or even a setup man who has been as good as Axford and is as cheap as Axford will go a long way in helping this team. The less free-agent relievers we have to being in, the better! Then as Axford approaches free-agency, if his value is still high... you start shopping; because we don't need to be paying closer money anymore. The money we threw at Gagne, or even Hoffman, is just plain better spend elsewhere. In short, unless someone puts up an offer we can't refuse, we keep him for the forseeable future.