Article: Is Brandon Woodruff a Brewers Trade Candidate?

[Robocaller]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players. 

Some are, some aren't. There have always been dominant old starting pitchers. The thing that has changed from 50 years ago is that the medicine is much better at bringing back players from major injuries.
It's really hard to predict which pitcher will age well and which won't.

[Robocaller]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players. 

Some are, some aren't. There have always been dominant old starting pitchers. The thing that has changed from 50 years ago is that the medicine is much better at bringing back players from major injuries.
It's really hard to predict which pitcher will age well and which won't.

[MrTPlush]

3 hours ago, Robocaller said:

It's ideal, but not necessary. For example, if you produce a quality starting pitcher every year, you can trade the excess to fill in at weak positions.

You can try, but you will always be losing more than you are getting back…in the long run. If we trade Woodruff or Burnes, most of what we receive (if not all) will amount to nothing. The odds any of it becomes an All Star level talent I’d a huge order to fulfill. Very wasteful use of resources because we aren’t developing pitching.

Unless you are referring to trading excess prospects of one side to get prospects of the other side…but that’s not really common or realistic, in my opinion.

The one problem here is truly elite pitching prospects don’t seem to move in trades as often. Teams will ship out mega positional prospects all the time..,but rarely are teams wanting to give up pitching. We would be way better off developing pitching and trading Burnes/Woodruff for bats. If I had to guess, if either gets moved, it will be for bats and unlikely a pitching prospect heralded as a future frontline starter. Hopefully they can pick the right pitchers to compliment the bat that headlines any deal and maybe we can luck into finding another frontline starter.

[MrTPlush]

3 hours ago, Robocaller said:

It's ideal, but not necessary. For example, if you produce a quality starting pitcher every year, you can trade the excess to fill in at weak positions.

You can try, but you will always be losing more than you are getting back…in the long run. If we trade Woodruff or Burnes, most of what we receive (if not all) will amount to nothing. The odds any of it becomes an All Star level talent I’d a huge order to fulfill. Very wasteful use of resources because we aren’t developing pitching.

Unless you are referring to trading excess prospects of one side to get prospects of the other side…but that’s not really common or realistic, in my opinion.

The one problem here is truly elite pitching prospects don’t seem to move in trades as often. Teams will ship out mega positional prospects all the time..,but rarely are teams wanting to give up pitching. We would be way better off developing pitching and trading Burnes/Woodruff for bats. If I had to guess, if either gets moved, it will be for bats and unlikely a pitching prospect heralded as a future frontline starter. Hopefully they can pick the right pitchers to compliment the bat that headlines any deal and maybe we can luck into finding another frontline starter.

[UpandIn]

10 hours ago, Robocaller said:

It's ideal, but not necessary. For example, if you produce a quality starting pitcher every year, you can trade the excess to fill in at weak positions.

You can...but we haven't. 

[UpandIn]

10 hours ago, Robocaller said:

It's ideal, but not necessary. For example, if you produce a quality starting pitcher every year, you can trade the excess to fill in at weak positions.

You can...but we haven't. 

[SF70]

9 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

You can try, but you will always be losing more than you are getting back…in the long run. If we trade Woodruff or Burnes, most of what we receive (if not all) will amount to nothing. The odds any of it becomes an All Star level talent I’d a huge order to fulfill. Very wasteful use of resources because we aren’t developing pitching.

Unless you are referring to trading excess prospects of one side to get prospects of the other side…but that’s not really common or realistic, in my opinion.

The one problem here is truly elite pitching prospects don’t seem to move in trades as often. Teams will ship out mega positional prospects all the time..,but rarely are teams wanting to give up pitching. We would be way better off developing pitching and trading Burnes/Woodruff for bats. If I had to guess, if either gets moved, it will be for bats and unlikely a pitching prospect heralded as a future frontline starter. Hopefully they can pick the right pitchers to compliment the bat that headlines any deal and maybe we can luck into finding another frontline starter.

This is why Burnes should be traded THIS offseason vs next. This offseason, it’s highly likely as part of the return, a top 5-8 pitching prospect would be part of the return, maybe even another near top 15 as well depending on the team.

I’ll take my chances with that type of arm/arms and this teams PDS.

[SF70]

9 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

You can try, but you will always be losing more than you are getting back…in the long run. If we trade Woodruff or Burnes, most of what we receive (if not all) will amount to nothing. The odds any of it becomes an All Star level talent I’d a huge order to fulfill. Very wasteful use of resources because we aren’t developing pitching.

Unless you are referring to trading excess prospects of one side to get prospects of the other side…but that’s not really common or realistic, in my opinion.

The one problem here is truly elite pitching prospects don’t seem to move in trades as often. Teams will ship out mega positional prospects all the time..,but rarely are teams wanting to give up pitching. We would be way better off developing pitching and trading Burnes/Woodruff for bats. If I had to guess, if either gets moved, it will be for bats and unlikely a pitching prospect heralded as a future frontline starter. Hopefully they can pick the right pitchers to compliment the bat that headlines any deal and maybe we can luck into finding another frontline starter.

This is why Burnes should be traded THIS offseason vs next. This offseason, it’s highly likely as part of the return, a top 5-8 pitching prospect would be part of the return, maybe even another near top 15 as well depending on the team.

I’ll take my chances with that type of arm/arms and this teams PDS.

[monty57]

16 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

A) The Brewers have a specific value that they've designated for each of their players. Either a team meets that value or it doesn't. We shouldn't settle for merely a "solid" offer with both of these guys two whole years from free agency. Otherwise, you're just setting things up for failure. 

B) Again a five year deal such as what Castillo and Wheeler got would take Woodruff to his age 35 season. There is no reason to think that his age 33-35 years would turn out to be "dead weight", even if they're not as productive as his prime years. But simply saying baseball is a "young man's game" is ignoring how many of the best pitchers in baseball over in recent seasons have been in their 30s. Guys like Verlander, Lance Lynn, etc. are very similar to Woodruff in build and arsenal. I'll take the assurance of having an ace over the next several years over gambling that we can replicate our success with Burnes, Peralta, and Woodruff with another team's prospects. 

A) You're just arguing semantics at this point ("solid" isn't a good word, you should have said "super solid," and if you had than I'll say you should have said "super, super solid"), so I'll just bow out of this one.

B) There is age regression for every player. Players age differently, but everyone ages. Once you get beyond the "Prime years," you are taking extra risk because at some point everyone will hit the cliff. Looking at a handful of guys and saying "see, these guys did it, so this particular player can as well" is ignoring that while some players have careers into their late 30's, most don't.

The likely scenario in a 4-5 year extension beyond current team control for Woodruff is that he would pitch progressively worse each year of the extension, as he will be past his prime for the entire extension. There is a chance he could remain dominant, but that's probably around equal to the chance that he'd fall off a cliff in year one of the extension.  A progressive decline for a player of Woodruff's caliber may still have him as an above-average player at age 35, but we'd be paying for an ace. Therefore, the likely scenario is that we'd be significantly overpaying, and the odds that we'd get our money's worth are probably about equal to the odds that it's a massive overpay.

It's hard for the Brewers to pay big money for anyone. Paying that for a guy who will be at the end of his prime in his final arby year adds a lot of extra risk, and would probably (not certainly) lead to a period where everyone was wishing that we could get out of the contract. I can't think of a multi-year contract the Brewers have had for a player in his mid-30s where this hasn't been the case.

It's hard to think that the stars we have today may not be the stars we have tomorrow, but the math seems to point to Burnes being too expensive and Woodruff being at an age that a long-term extension doesn't make sense. We're better off offering early extensions to young players that will get the team control period to age 30 or so than we are to extend older players beyond that age.

[monty57]

16 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

A) The Brewers have a specific value that they've designated for each of their players. Either a team meets that value or it doesn't. We shouldn't settle for merely a "solid" offer with both of these guys two whole years from free agency. Otherwise, you're just setting things up for failure. 

B) Again a five year deal such as what Castillo and Wheeler got would take Woodruff to his age 35 season. There is no reason to think that his age 33-35 years would turn out to be "dead weight", even if they're not as productive as his prime years. But simply saying baseball is a "young man's game" is ignoring how many of the best pitchers in baseball over in recent seasons have been in their 30s. Guys like Verlander, Lance Lynn, etc. are very similar to Woodruff in build and arsenal. I'll take the assurance of having an ace over the next several years over gambling that we can replicate our success with Burnes, Peralta, and Woodruff with another team's prospects. 

A) You're just arguing semantics at this point ("solid" isn't a good word, you should have said "super solid," and if you had than I'll say you should have said "super, super solid"), so I'll just bow out of this one.

B) There is age regression for every player. Players age differently, but everyone ages. Once you get beyond the "Prime years," you are taking extra risk because at some point everyone will hit the cliff. Looking at a handful of guys and saying "see, these guys did it, so this particular player can as well" is ignoring that while some players have careers into their late 30's, most don't.

The likely scenario in a 4-5 year extension beyond current team control for Woodruff is that he would pitch progressively worse each year of the extension, as he will be past his prime for the entire extension. There is a chance he could remain dominant, but that's probably around equal to the chance that he'd fall off a cliff in year one of the extension.  A progressive decline for a player of Woodruff's caliber may still have him as an above-average player at age 35, but we'd be paying for an ace. Therefore, the likely scenario is that we'd be significantly overpaying, and the odds that we'd get our money's worth are probably about equal to the odds that it's a massive overpay.

It's hard for the Brewers to pay big money for anyone. Paying that for a guy who will be at the end of his prime in his final arby year adds a lot of extra risk, and would probably (not certainly) lead to a period where everyone was wishing that we could get out of the contract. I can't think of a multi-year contract the Brewers have had for a player in his mid-30s where this hasn't been the case.

It's hard to think that the stars we have today may not be the stars we have tomorrow, but the math seems to point to Burnes being too expensive and Woodruff being at an age that a long-term extension doesn't make sense. We're better off offering early extensions to young players that will get the team control period to age 30 or so than we are to extend older players beyond that age.

[monty57]

21 hours ago, Robocaller said:

I think fans wouldn't be pissed off if (some of) those players were traded at the deadline next year if the Brewers are clearly out of the race.

Maybe not, but if we hold onto everyone, we should be in the race at the deadline. 

We saw this year what happens if a good player is traded away while they're in the race, so that probably won't happen again. So, if we hold onto everyone and we remain competitive, the team is putting itself in the situation where they will have to trade away Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, Lauer and Houser in the same offseason after 2023 or ride them to free agency and lose them for nothing. 

I mentioned this earlier, but I think they'll lessen their return by trading both Woodruff and Burnes in the same offseason, as they will be taking offers #1 and 2 in one year, rather than getting the best offer in two successive seasons.

If they are able to extend one of Burnes/Woodruff, then I could see them both being on the roster in 2023. If they do not extend one of them, I think one will be traded this offseason.

[monty57]

21 hours ago, Robocaller said:

I think fans wouldn't be pissed off if (some of) those players were traded at the deadline next year if the Brewers are clearly out of the race.

Maybe not, but if we hold onto everyone, we should be in the race at the deadline. 

We saw this year what happens if a good player is traded away while they're in the race, so that probably won't happen again. So, if we hold onto everyone and we remain competitive, the team is putting itself in the situation where they will have to trade away Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, Lauer and Houser in the same offseason after 2023 or ride them to free agency and lose them for nothing. 

I mentioned this earlier, but I think they'll lessen their return by trading both Woodruff and Burnes in the same offseason, as they will be taking offers #1 and 2 in one year, rather than getting the best offer in two successive seasons.

If they are able to extend one of Burnes/Woodruff, then I could see them both being on the roster in 2023. If they do not extend one of them, I think one will be traded this offseason.