Why the Brewers Should Trade for Tyler Soderstrom

[SandyTolan]

15 minutes ago, TURBO said:

I think you can remove Yelich from the OF rotation you mentioned.  Their OF rotation as it stands now would be Chourio, Frelick, Mitchell, Baddoo, Bauers, Lockridge, and Perkins.  Outside of Chourio and Frelick, that is a very weak rotation.

We simply need one guy to add to that stable and our OF could be set.  Would love to get Soderstrom, but I don't think we are willing to pony up the prospects it would take.

I didn't actually mean Yelich in the OF, but rather in the OF/DH rotation, in which he would almost exclusively play DH. With Soderstrom/Mitchell/Frelick/Chourio in the OF, when everyone's healthy, you could have one of them rotate to DH when Yelich needs a day off. And maybe they could give him more days off to preserve his back.  And this rotation, again when everyone's healthy, would allow them to not need or use Bauers in the OF. In this scenario, Perkins is dealt, Badoo is the 5th OF, and Lockridge is in AAA.

[Team Canada]

1 hour ago, JerBancroft said:

I literally started saying this 2 years ago reference Soderstrom. 

I suggested trading from our wealth of young OF depth to fill an obvious hole at 1B. 

The replies from brewer fans were:

❌️The A's will never trade him

❌️No one trades prospects.for other prospects

❌️we can just stick someone else at 1B

And my favorite:

❌️he might not even pan out like Andrew Vaughn never panned out

Now it seems like our hole is at shortstop more than first base. 

I'd focus on moving Turang to SS, Durbin to 2B (where his arm and lack of power play better), and trade for or sign a real third baseman. 

Welcome!

[Team Canada]

5 hours ago, Telemachus Rafaelidys said:

Tyler Soderstrom would be the perfect fit for the Brewers in left field. He just turned 24, has four years of club control remaining, and is coming off a breakout season in which he was worth roughly 4 wins above replacement

My problem with this article is the whole premise - why would the A's even do this? You could sub in any great young player and say "this guy's a great fit, we might have to overpay but we should do it!" If it's enough of an overpay that the other team would accept, it's going to be more of an overpay than Arnold would do.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, JerBancroft said:

I literally started saying this 2 years ago reference Soderstrom. 

I suggested trading from our wealth of young OF depth to fill an obvious hole at 1B. 

The replies from brewer fans were:

❌️The A's will never trade him

❌️No one trades prospects.for other prospects

❌️we can just stick someone else at 1B

And my favorite:

❌️he might not even pan out like Andrew Vaughn never panned out

Now it seems like our hole is at shortstop more than first base. 

I'd focus on moving Turang to SS, Durbin to 2B (where his arm and lack of power play better), and trade for or sign a real third baseman. 

Welcome to Brewer Fanatic!

[Brewersfan1]

1 hour ago, tmwiese55 said:

Did you read the proposal?  Its not Mitchell straight up for Soderstrom. Mitchell is just a toss in flyer who can play at MLB at this point.     The point is merely that the money this year has nothing to do with it. If OAK wouldn't want him its because of the injuries and/or that he doesn't have as many years of control left, so they'd choose someone else

Hilarious you are being condescending.. so what you are saying is Mitchell is just a throw in. That means you think Patrick and Pratt (coming off a down year where he will definitely be lower on top 100 charts, if not already) are enough to get a player with 4 years of control, coming off a great year offensively and is great to elite LF. The other option is you think Mitchell has some redeemable value in a trade (I don’t believe he does). A guy who has only shown glimpses of being able to hit major league pitching, more expensive, (albeit, yes, not much more expensive)older, but is maybe still an elite outfielder. I say maybe elite because his arm probably won’t be what it was anymore. Maybe relax on the condescending question and explanation while being incredibly wrong.

[sveumrules]

3 minutes ago, Brewersfan1 said:

That means you think Patrick and Pratt (coming off a down year where he will definitely be lower on top 100 charts, if not already) are enough to get a player with 4 years of control, coming off a great year offensively and is great to elite LF.

For whatever it is or isn't worth Baseball Trade Values has them at...

Soderstrom (34.2)
Pratt (24.1)
Patrick (15)

[Brewersfan1]

4 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

For whatever it is or isn't worth Baseball Trade Values has them at...

Soderstrom (34.2)
Pratt (24.1)
Patrick (15)

I’m fine with being wrong. Maybe the A’s absolute love them both and think they win this trade. I think the Brewers and most everyone else would do that trade immediately without hesitation. I just don’t see that being enough. How about you?

[tmwiese55]

11 minutes ago, Brewersfan1 said:

Hilarious you are being condescending.. so what you are saying is Mitchell is just a throw in. That means you think Patrick and Pratt (coming off a down year where he will definitely be lower on top 100 charts, if not already) are enough to get a player with 4 years of control, coming off a great year offensively and is great to elite LF. The other option is you think Mitchell has some redeemable value in a trade (I don’t believe he does). A guy who has only shown glimpses of being able to hit major league pitching, more expensive, (albeit, yes, not much more expensive)older, but is maybe still an elite outfielder. I say maybe elite because his arm probably won’t be what it was anymore. Maybe relax on the condescending question and explanation while being incredibly wrong.

Where was there any condescension?  I legit asked if you read it because you were comparing Mitchell directly to Soderstrum, and that is not the deal..   Think you might want to look in the mirror and reread both posts and ask yourself which one was condescending. 

You are arguing a  whole different thing now regarding trade value. Go ahead and have that discussion if you want.  I actually made posts more or less agreeing with what you said here, that we'd have to pay more so we probably won't do it.  The point of this discussion was that Mitchell's money won't matter, that's it.   

If we want to talk about relax I'd again so to again look in the mirror and get a feel for the tone of this board. It is not this argumentative/attack style you're coming in hot with trying to pick a fight with people  

[Brewersfan1]

35 minutes ago, tmwiese55 said:

Where was there any condescension?  I legit asked if you read it because you were comparing Mitchell directly to Soderstrum, and that is not the deal..   Think you might want to look in the mirror and reread both posts and ask yourself which one was condescending. 

You are arguing a  whole different thing now regarding trade value. Go ahead and have that discussion if you want.  I actually made posts more or less agreeing with what you said here, that we'd have to pay more so we probably won't do it.  The point of this discussion was that Mitchell's money won't matter, that's it.   

If we want to talk about relax I'd again so to again look in the mirror and get a feel for the tone of this board. It is not this argumentative/attack style you're coming in hot with trying to pick a fight with people  

I’m fully aware of the discussion. I’m talking trade value because it matters when talking about the difference in the salaries. I don’t believe Pratt/Patrick gets the trade done, so the Brewers have to throw in the “peanuts” contract of Mitchell. A more expensive, older throw in to essentially replace the hole Soderstrom leaves, is not how the A’s operate (going off their past work). Realistically Mitchell probably makes around $1 mil next year (not the $2 mil the comment, I responded to, said was peanuts. Another way to say $2 mil, is double league minimum. Which may sound like “peanuts”, is definitely not to teams like the Brewers and A’s, specifically the A’s) that is still $300,000 more than Soderstrom. That’s a lot of money to these teams, if it weren’t they wouldn’t be arguing over those amounts in arbitration hearings. So to the point of this discussion the Mitchell money most likely does matter to these teams.

[TURBO]

Why the thumbs down @ghostdrew ?

Care to tell me what you disagree with?

C'mon man, share...

 

[tmwiese55]

15 minutes ago, Brewersfan1 said:

I’m fully aware of the discussion. I’m talking trade value because it matters when talking about the difference in the salaries. I don’t believe Pratt/Patrick gets the trade done, so the Brewers have to throw in the “peanuts” contract of Mitchell. A more expensive, older throw in to essentially replace the hole Soderstrom leaves, is not how the A’s operate (going off their past work). Realistically Mitchell probably makes around $1 mil next year (not the $2 mil the comment, I responded to, said was peanuts. Another way to say $2 mil, is double league minimum. Which may sound like “peanuts”, is definitely not to teams like the Brewers and A’s, specifically the A’s) that is still $300,000 more than Soderstrom. That’s a lot of money to these teams, if it weren’t they wouldn’t be arguing over those amounts in arbitration hearings. So to the point of this discussion the Mitchell money most likely does matter to these teams.

OK.  I don't think the extra few hundred grand would matter if they liked everything else about the deal and if they generally think Mitchell is someone they'd be willing to take a flyer on.   I'd support that by the fact OAK paid guys like Urias, Andujar, Urshela, Seth Brown right in that same ballpark or more last year.  I'd be confident that if they liked everything else about the trade, the fact he makes a few hundred K more than the alternative isn't much of a factor.  If you do, so be it.   Couple hundred K though when you have to fill the roster spot anyway, I just don't think matters if everything else checks out. 

If they just don't like Mitchell for all the other reasons we all can see, that's a whole different discussion. And if they don't like the overall trade value for everyone involved is a different discussion.  If he was say another year into Arb so his number is more in the 5 mil ballpark, different discussion.   As the OP said, the trade was about everything else. He was looking at Mitchell as a sweetener to try and put it over the top, if they'd prefer a non injured, younger guy with more years of control then they can pick someone else.

[Brewersfan1]

7 minutes ago, tmwiese55 said:

OK.  I don't think the extra few hundred grand would matter if they liked everything else about the deal and if they generally think Mitchell is someone they'd be willing to take a flyer on.   I'd support that by the fact OAK paid guys like Urias, Andujar, Urshela, Seth Brown right in that same ballpark or more last year.  I'd be confident that if they liked everything else about the trade, the fact he makes a few hundred K more than the alternative isn't much of a factor.  If you do, so be it.   Couple hundred K though when you have to fill the roster spot anyway, I just don't think matters if everything else checks out. 

If they just don't like Mitchell for all the other reasons we all can see, that's a whole different discussion. And if they don't like the overall trade value for everyone involved is a different discussion.  If he was say another year into Arb so his number is more in the 5 mil ballpark, different discussion.   As the OP said, the trade was about everything else. He was looking at Mitchell as a sweetener to try and put it over the top, if they'd prefer a non injured, younger guy with more years of control then they can pick someone else.

If they like everything else about the deal, the sweetener isn’t needed and why would the Brewers add him to it? That’s why I think the trade and value past just peanuts couple thousand K.

I think they do, I agree with you, that they’d want a cheaper player with actual value. Not hoping Mitchell, not only miraculously stays healthy, but is actually good. A sweetener to me has some value. He’s always had the tools and shown glimpses of them until injury. Granted it was only 80 PAs, but they were a really bad 80 PAs. I won’t pretend to know the answer to if that was from injuries or not. They are stacking up and it’s fair to ask that question isn’t it? I get it I’m side tracking again. 

[Brewersfan1]

1 hour ago, tmwiese55 said:

I'd support that by the fact OAK paid guys like Urias, Andujar, Urshela, Seth Brown right in that same ballpark or more last year. 

That’s fair. Although I’d add let’s wait till FA kicks in for smaller market teams to see if this is a trend or one year to avoid getting in trouble as the other commenter pointed out. They did a lot in the minor league rule 5 and have a couple smaller signings.

[tmwiese55]

1 hour ago, Brewersfan1 said:

If they like everything else about the deal, the sweetener isn’t needed and why would the Brewers add him to it? That’s why I think the trade and value past just peanuts couple thousand K.

I think they do, I agree with you, that they’d want a cheaper player with actual value. Not hoping Mitchell, not only miraculously stays healthy, but is actually good. A sweetener to me has some value. He’s always had the tools and shown glimpses of them until injury. Granted it was only 80 PAs, but they were a really bad 80 PAs. I won’t pretend to know the answer to if that was from injuries or not. They are stacking up and it’s fair to ask that question isn’t it? I get it I’m side tracking again. 

Because them liking the player (mitchell) is part of that deal.     The point was like everything else about the deal besides Mitchell being a few hundred K than league min.

[Brewersfan1]

41 minutes ago, tmwiese55 said:

Because them liking the player (mitchell) is part of that deal.     The point was like everything else about the deal besides Mitchell being a few hundred K than league min.

And that’s where we’ll never agree. There’s years of penny pinching from these two franchises - otherwise one wouldn’t be moving and one wouldn’t have a whole fanbase calling Mark A cheap. One year of signing the players you mentioned is questionable at best. Those were minimal contracts to get the MLBPA off their back. These franchises go to arbitration with players for hundreds of thousands (nothing according to this thread) because that money adds up to, sometimes, their biggest free agent signing for the year. 

[ghostdrew]

4 hours ago, TURBO said:

Why the thumbs down @ghostdrew ?

Care to tell me what you disagree with?

C'mon man, share...

 

Nah ill pass but have a wonderful night 

[Brian]

6 hours ago, sveumrules said:

For whatever it is or isn't worth Baseball Trade Values has them at...

Soderstrom (34.2)
Pratt (24.1)
Patrick (15)

What is Brandon Woodruff's trade value?

[Frisbee Slider]

Baseball Trade Values has Brandon Woodruff with field value of 24.8. However, his $22 million salary put his surplus value at just 2.7. (Grain of salt)

i’m not sure if the site takes to consideration that Woodruff cannot be traded until the middle of June. They also might ding him for injury risk too.

[CheeseheadInQC]

14 hours ago, Brewersfan1 said:

I’m fully aware of the discussion. I’m talking trade value because it matters when talking about the difference in the salaries. I don’t believe Pratt/Patrick gets the trade done, so the Brewers have to throw in the “peanuts” contract of Mitchell. A more expensive, older throw in to essentially replace the hole Soderstrom leaves, is not how the A’s operate (going off their past work). Realistically Mitchell probably makes around $1 mil next year (not the $2 mil the comment, I responded to, said was peanuts. Another way to say $2 mil, is double league minimum. Which may sound like “peanuts”, is definitely not to teams like the Brewers and A’s, specifically the A’s) that is still $300,000 more than Soderstrom. That’s a lot of money to these teams, if it weren’t they wouldn’t be arguing over those amounts in arbitration hearings. So to the point of this discussion the Mitchell money most likely does matter to these teams.

To be fair on the arbitration argument, part of that is because unless I am mistaken, arbitration relies on precedent. So it isn’t just a one-time charge. While it isn’t as prominent as it used to be, I fully believe there is collusion/pressure between owners when it comes to arbitration.

[jay87shot]

The A's have said they aren't trading from there young core, that would include Soderstrom I would love to get him but if they aren't interested in trading him my guess if that Pratt and Henderson isn't enough. That by itself might be more than I would be comfortable offering anyway.

[tmwiese55]

12 hours ago, Brewersfan1 said:

And that’s where we’ll never agree. There’s years of penny pinching from these two franchises - otherwise one wouldn’t be moving and one wouldn’t have a whole fanbase calling Mark A cheap. One year of signing the players you mentioned is questionable at best. Those were minimal contracts to get the MLBPA off their back. These franchises go to arbitration with players for hundreds of thousands (nothing according to this thread) because that money adds up to, sometimes, their biggest free agent signing for the year. 

Well its not 1 year.  Its every year they have players like that. 2-3 years back they had former brewers greats Manny Pina and Jesus Aguilar in that same area.   Add fact with that last year they clearly started trying to win again after the few years of tanking for the move and I'd have no reason to think couple hundred K would be a deal breaker.     Whereas you have the opinion and what seems like an overreaction to the OAK cheap reputation that since a team is cheap it means they literally never spend any money. In spite of course rules that say they have to spend the money and the fact that even them being cheap they still spend 70-80 million per year, in which a couple hundred grand is nothing (thus why every year they have guys like this that are a bit over min).   In general, spending on guys like this is still being cheap in that you're spending 1-2 mil on a guy who likely isn't going to be any good rather than 8-10 mil on someone more reliable (who also likely demands multi year commitment).

But yea, you can have the opinion that OAK will never spend above league min, thats fine.  And yea I do think they'd rather grab a guy from us who hasn't debuted yet just like you rather than someone with Mitchell's injuries, general mediocreness, and less years of control

[duewizard]

Too expensive to be worth it IMHO. Gasser/Henderson + Kuehner/Hunt + Boeve/Wilken is 100% not doing it. This trade starts with Made/Peña/Pratt and then a couple other top 20 kids.

[Turning2]

There is a time to be bold and a time to be patient in building rosters for the present and the future. The Brewers are in a window for winning it all. They should be bold. Meekness has amounted to "close, but no cigar".

Assuming Soderstrom is even acquirable, a few things come to mind. For one, he is far from a proven star. Currently ascending, sure. But we can all find players who had a big breakout year, and then were nothing special. MIL should use that in negotiating a trade. Then offer 1 of Henderson, Patrick or Myers, Pena, and either Perkins or Tyler Black. If they don't like Pena, or the Perkins / Black, maybe sweeten with someone like Letson. A's get a MLB level starter (with various experience and track record depending on choice), a high value prospect, and either an established, known commodity in Perkins, or a bubble AAA / MLB level guy like Tyler Black who I think really just needs a chance to have everyday ABs in the bigs somewhere. In return, MIL gets a guy who could just as easily descend and become another meh OF bat joining the ranks of Perkins, Lockridge, Berroa, Baddoo etc as become a regular 20+HR guy with solid defense.

Having a consistently top rated, highly regarded farm system makes up somewhat for the economic disparity small market teams face. MIL should leverage their prospect capital the way the big market teams leverage their economic advantage. Not leveraging that farm system signals a willingness to just provide entertainment rather than a commitment to excellence. Don't overspend.  Don't mortgage the future. But draw from your surplus. We're supposedly drowning in prospects, and there isn't enough room for them all. Either we're being lied to about just how good the farm system is, or we have a surplus to work with. 

Things we know:

The Brewers can't afford to spend on big bats, but they can afford speed and defense. 

Speed and defense wins division championships not World Series championships

MIL has a highly touted farm system with a surplus of tantalizing talent

MIL has an overall solid roster than needs a key piece or two. 

Putting that altogether, it seems fairly logical... trade surplus and future unknowns (aka - prospects) for an ascending, proven player at the big boy / MLB level. 

 

 

 

[JohnBriggs12]

I'd love to get Soderstrom, but I don't see the A's dealing him.  Maybe for Henderson and Patrick with Mitchell thrown in.

[Scooterfletcher]

1 hour ago, JohnBriggs12 said:

I'd love to get Soderstrom, but I don't see the A's dealing him.  Maybe for Henderson and Patrick with Mitchell thrown in.

Done deal from Arnold