Taylor, Houser to NYM

[Brewcrew82]

9 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

Steamer also has Rea projected to be Miley. It's clearly not an exact science lol.

It's not, but these are the types of projections major league teams use to build their rosters and are more accurate than not in the long run. 

Rea is also 4 years younger than Miley....

[sveumrules]

Just now, wiguy94 said:

My point is the people who are trying to justify this trade as not a salary dump because the Brewers clearly value Crow a bunch are being ironic. If Brewers clearly valued Crow they would have taken him in the Rule 5 draft. If they just had to get him they wouldn't have taken the chance of someone else selecting him or trading for him in the last 2 weeks.

Lose a whole year of service time taking him in the Rule 5 while he's on the 60 Day IL recovering from TJ.

Also clogs up a 40 Man spot in the offseason when he can't be on the IL.

With the way the Brewers value 40 Man flexibility and years of team control I'm not surprised they viewed trading for him as a better option than selecting him in the Rule 5.

[TURBO]

42 minutes ago, SRB said:

Yeah except all we traded away was one year of a back of the rotation starter and the seventh OF on our depth chart. Frees up money to spend on a useful role player.

Frees up what, 7 million?

I guess it could go to a Santana signing, but this trade makes no sense.

If we did it just to free up money, how can anyone not agree that this is an extremely cheap way to do business.

It's just plain gross.

[markedman5]

 

[TURBO]

39 minutes ago, SRB said:

And Houser is making too much money to be a 6th/7th SP or long reliever if they want to roll with younger players in the rotation.

5.5 million is too much money?  This isn't 1995.

[Brewcrew82]

1 minute ago, TURBO said:

Like we couldn't clear some space if we had to...That just isn't enough justification for a head scratching trade.

Steamer projects us to get better by replacing Taylor and Houser's playing time with Chourio and Gasser, while having increased payroll flexibility? That's not exactly headscratching. It's doing what the Rays do. 

Would I have preferred the return to be a little heavier? Sure. What fan wouldn't. But I also realize that Taylor and Houser are replaceable players and that we're trying to get younger and cheaper in an effort to open up a longer window of contention. 

[wiguy94]

1 minute ago, sveumrules said:

Lose a whole year of service time taking him in the Rule 5 while he's on the 60 Day IL recovering from TJ.

Also clogs up a 40 Man spot in the offseason when he can't be on the IL.

With the way the Brewers value 40 Man flexibility and years of team control I'm not surprised they viewed trading for him as a better option than selecting him in the Rule 5.

The 40 man flexibility talk is just such a reach. The only difference between trading for him and drafting him in the Rule 5 in terms of 40 man flexibility is this offseason. In season he will be on the 60-day IL because of TJ and he will need to be added next offseason to the 40-man to protect him from the Rule 5. So we are talking 3 months difference when we have a bunch of players who can easily be moved off the 40 man.

[Brewcrew82]

2 minutes ago, markedman5 said:

 

So you're telling me this FO potentially knows more than the hotshots on Brewerfanatic? 

[Hooker78]

3 minutes ago, TURBO said:

Frees up what, 7 million?

I guess it could go to a Santana signing, but this trade makes no sense.

If we did it just to free up money, how can anyone not agree that this is an extremely cheap way to do business.

It's just plain gross.

The trade makes total sense for a small market team. You can’t pay marginal guys like 6/7 starters $6 million a year.

They traded two guys that have no future with the club, that they already have similar, if not better players to fill their spots while opening up two roster spots, saving $7 million AND getting an interesting young arm they obviously like. This is how you compete as a small market team. It’s not gross, it’s good business. 

[Brewcrew82]

1 minute ago, Hooker78 said:

The trade makes total sense for a small market team. You can’t pay marginal guys like 6/7 starters $6 million a year.

They traded two guys that have no future with the club, that they already have similar, if not better players to fill their spots while opening up two roster spots, saving $7 million AND getting an interesting young arm they obviously like. This is how you compete as a small market team. It’s not gross, it’s good business. 

This. 

A lot of Brewers fans have a hard time comprehending that we're a smaller market than the Rays and A's (for now), who are literal penny pinchers. 

[wiguy94]

Just now, Brewcrew82 said:

This. 

A lot of Brewers fans have a hard time comprehending that we're a smaller market than the Rays and A's (for now), who are literal penny pinchers. 

We are smaller market than the Rays but we generate more revenue than them because we actually have fans.

[mudbutt]

5 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

The 40 man flexibility talk is just such a reach. The only difference between trading for him and drafting him in the Rule 5 in terms of 40 man flexibility is this offseason. In season he will be on the 60-day IL because of TJ and he will need to be added next offseason to the 40-man to protect him from the Rule 5. So we are talking 3 months difference when we have a bunch of players who can easily be moved off the 40 man.

It is 90 days DURING the season.

[CheeseheadInQC]

It does feel light, given what the pitching market has been like.

That being said, the guy spent most of his career in an organization not exactly known for developing pitching. If this had been a one-for-one for Taylor I would see it as a savvy move.

[Hooker78]

4 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

The 40 man flexibility talk is just such a reach. The only difference between trading for him and drafting him in the Rule 5 in terms of 40 man flexibility is this offseason. In season he will be on the 60-day IL because of TJ and he will need to be added next offseason to the 40-man to protect him from the Rule 5. So we are talking 3 months difference when we have a bunch of players who can easily be moved off the 40 man.

They did just easily move two guys off the 40 man roster…by trading them for an young controllable arm that by most accounts has a real chance to be a younger and cheaper version of the guy they traded him for. And by trading for this kid instead of just selecting him as you suggest they gained far more flexibility with him and their roster. This is savvy small market baseball. 

[wiguy94]

Just now, mudbutt said:

It is 90 days DURING the season.

You're mixing up 26 man and 40 man flexibility.

[mudbutt]

Just now, wiguy94 said:

You're mixing up 26 man and 40 man flexibility.

No you are not understanding drafting a Rule 5 guy affects both the 26 man and 40 man flexibility.  He has to be on the 26 man for 90 active days.  And if you are on the 26 man roster, you have to be on the 40 man too.

[iKezims]

1 minute ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Steamer projects us to get better by replacing Taylor and Houser's playing time with Chourio and Gasser, while having increased payroll flexibility? That's not exactly headscratching. It's doing what the Rays do. 

Would I have preferred the return to be a little heavier? Sure. What fan wouldn't. But I also realize that Taylor and Houser are replaceable players and that we're trying to get younger and cheaper in an effort to open up a longer window of contention. 

As a mostly daily lurker it is wild to see that we have reached a point where Houser NOT being on this team has thrown us all into a tizzy. 

I really have yet to see the Joe Ross signing acknowledged anywhere in this thread. I know it's not needle-pushing, but he is going to be in the rotation and I think is being forgotten about a lot already.

The trade is meh - Brewers clearly value Perkins > Taylor. There isn't enough room for them all. I would have preferred Houser as depth for this year but '24 was likely to be the last of him in a Brewers jersey regardless. Return does feel light though. But per usual, we are reactionary and quick to just yell that the team is cheap. It's December. 

[TURBO]

7 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

So you're telling me this FO potentially knows more than the hotshots on Brewerfanatic? 

Ummm, from one "hot shot" to another...

Please.

 

[Brewcrew82]

Just now, wiguy94 said:

We are smaller market than the Rays but we generate more revenue than them because we actually have fans.

And we have spent more money than them since Attanasio took over...

They've also been to two WS in the last 15 years. I'd take that in a heartbeat even if it meant we spent a little less. 

We're the literal smallest market in a league where the salary structure decisively favors the biggest markets. These types of deals are just something we have to live with. 

[Brewcrew82]

Just now, TURBO said:

Ummm, from one "hot shot" to another...

Please.

 

Yes. We're all hot shots. The FO has more info than us and a proven track record of success. What's your point? 

[wallus]

Fine with trading these two guys but wish they would have gotten more.

[wiguy94]

4 minutes ago, mudbutt said:

No you are not understanding drafting a Rule 5 guy affects both the 26 man and 40 man flexibility.  He has to be on the 26 man for 90 active days.  And if you are on the 26 man roster, you have to be on the 40 man too.

No you're the one who doesn't understand. 

Crow had TJ mid August. You're looking at around 12 months rehab and could easily be milked for longer. That will likely push the Rule 5 roster time requirement to 2025. Yes he will need to be on the 26 man for 90 days before being optioned in that scenario but he's going to added to be added to the 40-man next offseason either way. So in regards to 40-man flexibility the only difference between Rule 5 and the trade is him being on the 40-man this offseason. In season he will be on the 60 day-IL which will take him off the 40 man. Next offseason he would have been added either way. 

 

Edit: Before you say he won't be added to the 40-man next offseason we literally just added Bradley Blalock to the 40-man this year coming off TJ and never having pitched in AA. 

[TURBO]

The move is a salary dump, I get it, but the return is really unimpressive.

I'm hoping that they know what they are doing,  but the rotation is a worry, and as of now, it's even more of a worry than it was this morning.

Hopefully there is something else going down to address the rotation.

[mudbutt]

2 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

No you're the one who doesn't understand. 

Crow had TJ mid August. You're looking at around 12 months rehab and could easily be milked for longer. That will likely push the Rule 5 roster time requirement to 2025. Yes he will need to be on the 26 man for 90 days before being optioned in that scenario but he's going to added to be added to the 40-man next offseason either way. So in regards to 40-man flexibility the only difference between Rule 5 and the trade is him being on the 40-man this offseason. In season he will be on the 60 day-IL which will take him off the 40 man. Next offseason he would have been added either way. 

 

Edit: Before you say he won't be added to the 40-man next offseason we literally just added Bradley Blalock to the 40-man this year coming off TJ and never having pitched in AA. 

No I will go back to the original point of saying carrying a guy on the 26 man roster who can't actually play is stupid.

[Brewcrew82]

Just now, TURBO said:

The move is a salary dump, I get it, but the return is really unimpressive.

I'm hoping that they know what they are doing,  but the rotation is a worry, and as of now, it's even more of a worry than it was this morning.

Hopefully there is something else going down to address the rotation.

Maybe could use more depth, though Ross helps, but Gasser is projected to be better than Houser, who we lose after the season anyways. 

Let's not make Houser into more than he is.