A discussion on trading starting pitchers with a year of control remaining

[adambr2]

In the current regime, we've seen a pattern of trading high end starting pitchers that we know won't be returning, a year prior to free agency, no sooner, no later, while with position players we often let it ride all the way to the QO.

This of course occurred with Burnes and Peralta. Actually, this goes all the way back to the Yovani Gallardo days, but that was obviously pre-Arnold. 

So has this benefitted us? I'd like to disclaim a couple things here — obviously Matt Arnold is a tremendous GM and I'm not second guessing that. It's okay to discuss whether a particular strategy has been beneficial or if the alternative (taking it all the way to QO) would be better. Additionally, I know that in these arguments, we see a lot of "the players we acquired provided a total of 'X' WAR while the player(s) we traded away gave us only 'Y' WAR in that one season. 

I'm not sure how beneficial that information is, because 1) we're more focused on October results at this point, and these arguments don't really include that, and 2) just for an example, if Joey Ortiz hadn't been our SS the last 2.5 seasons, someone else with unknown results would have been taking his place.

Corbin Burnes brought us Joey Ortiz and DL Hall (also the CB RD A pick in 2024, but this is offset by the lost potential QO pick, so for all intents and purposes the deal was Burnes for Ortiz and Hall.)

Hall is an adequate lefty bullpen arm, nothing more and nothing less. His command has been concerning this year while the results have still been acceptable. We know what we have with Joey, who has a fantastic glove but lacks a strong enough bat to be a long-term solution at the position. 

In the 2024 season, the season ended in heartbreaking fashion with the Game 3 Wild Card loss to the Mets. Would the series have been different with Burnes leading the rotation? Would we have continued to advance deeper in the NL playoffs? These are hypotheticals that of course, we can never know, but are still worth considering when making these kinds of trades. 

In 2026, we are in a position where Peralta would ironically make a much needed addition to the current rotation. Jett hasn't had his shot yet, and Sprout, while certainly having a capable high upside arm, hasn't had the results we'd like to see so far. It's certainly fair to say the jury is still out on this one, but let's also not forget the loss of Tobias Myers in this deal, who has continued to be a reliable long man/swing man. And we also need to consider that Freddy would have brought in a comp pick at the end of the season on our side. 

Just want to hear everyone's thoughts on these type of deals — should we be continuing to do them? Or are the assets we've gained simply not worth losing out on a high end starting pitcher especially for a club that continues to be in contention year in and year out?

[liveforoctober]

25 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

In the current regime, we've seen a pattern of trading high end starting pitchers that we know won't be returning, a year prior to free agency, no sooner, no later, while with position players we often let it ride all the way to the QO.

This of course occurred with Burnes and Peralta. Actually, this goes all the way back to the Yovani Gallardo days, but that was obviously pre-Arnold. 

So has this benefitted us? I'd like to disclaim a couple things here — obviously Matt Arnold is a tremendous GM and I'm not second guessing that. It's okay to discuss whether a particular strategy has been beneficial or if the alternative (taking it all the way to QO) would be better. Additionally, I know that in these arguments, we see a lot of "the players we acquired provided a total of 'X' WAR while the player(s) we traded away gave us only 'Y' WAR in that one season. 

I'm not sure how beneficial that information is, because 1) we're more focused on October results at this point, and these arguments don't really include that, and 2) just for an example, if Joey Ortiz hadn't been our SS the last 2.5 seasons, someone else with unknown results would have been taking his place.

Corbin Burnes brought us Joey Ortiz and DL Hall (also the CB RD A pick in 2024, but this is offset by the lost potential QO pick, so for all intents and purposes the deal was Burnes for Ortiz and Hall.)

Hall is an adequate lefty bullpen arm, nothing more and nothing less. His command has been concerning this year while the results have still been acceptable. We know what we have with Joey, who has a fantastic glove but lacks a strong enough bat to be a long-term solution at the position. 

In the 2024 season, the season ended in heartbreaking fashion with the Game 3 Wild Card loss to the Mets. Would the series have been different with Burnes leading the rotation? Would we have continued to advance deeper in the NL playoffs? These are hypotheticals that of course, we can never know, but are still worth considering when making these kinds of trades. 

In 2026, we are in a position where Peralta would ironically make a much needed addition to the current rotation. Jett hasn't had his shot yet, and Sprout, while certainly having a capable high upside arm, hasn't had the results we'd like to see so far. It's certainly fair to say the jury is still out on this one, but let's also not forget the loss of Tobias Myers in this deal, who has continued to be a reliable long man/swing man. And we also need to consider that Freddy would have brought in a comp pick at the end of the season on our side. 

Just want to hear everyone's thoughts on these type of deals — should we be continuing to do them? Or are the assets we've gained simply not worth losing out on a high end starting pitcher especially for a club that continues to be in contention year in and year out?

I think the topic could be wider. It isn't just starting pitching with a year left of control, it is trading assets at perceived peak value to strengthen the overall organization and doing that top to bottom.

Burnes and Peralta are the most notable examples because they are the top of the chain along with Williams and Hader. But Durbin is an example, Collins is an example, you can drop down recently to KC Hunt and Jadher Areinamo as they possibly qualify. Sometimes it works out incredibly well and sometimes it doesn't in terms of immediate major league impact.

I don't see any way this discussion doesn't turn into "you have to go for it at some point or you'll never beat LA" which is a different discussion... but personally I don't think we have October opportunities without an organizational philosophy of mass value acquisition.

[brooks_quichenick]

41 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

In 2026, we are in a position where Peralta would ironically make a much needed addition to the current rotation.

Are we?

[adambr2]

2 minutes ago, liveforoctober said:

I think the topic could be wider. It isn't just starting pitching with a year left of control, it is trading assets at perceived peak value to strengthen the overall organization and doing that top to bottom.

Burnes and Peralta are the most notable examples because they are the top of the chain along with Williams and Hader. But Durbin is an example, Collins is an example, you can drop down recently to KC Hunt and Jadher Areinamo as they possibly qualify. Sometimes it works out incredibly well and sometimes it doesn't in terms of immediate major league impact.

I don't see any way this discussion doesn't turn into "you have to go for it at some point or you'll never beat LA" which is a different discussion... but personally I don't think we have October opportunities without an organizational philosophy of mass value acquisition.

Williams is probably a good addition to this discussion because that obviously turned into a home run via Durbin.

In general I think I would have a greater willingness to trade relievers than starters, being more replaceable.

I've noticed with high end position players we tend to ride them out until the end and then offer the QO rather than deal them. I think that will be the case with Contreras who I assume we have almost no hope of extending.

[adambr2]

2 minutes ago, brooks_quichenick said:

Are we?

… yes?

At the moment we have essentially a 3 man rotation. 

[brooks_quichenick]

Just now, adambr2 said:

… yes?

At the moment we have essentially a 3 man rotation. 

Our starting rotation is 5th in MLB in fWAR, 2nd in FIP.

[adambr2]

4 minutes ago, brooks_quichenick said:

Our starting rotation is 5th in MLB in fWAR, 2nd in FIP.

Yes, because Miz and Harrison have been downright amazing. It isn’t because we have a deep rotation with legitimate back end starters.

[liveforoctober]

7 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Williams is probably a good addition to this discussion because that obviously turned into a home run via Durbin.

In general I think I would have a greater willingness to trade relievers than starters, being more replaceable.

I've noticed with high end position players we tend to ride them out until the end and then offer the QO rather than deal them. I think that will be the case with Contreras who I assume we have almost no hope of extending.

Other than Adames have we offered any positional player a qualifying offer under Arnold?

[adambr2]

1 minute ago, liveforoctober said:

Other than Adames have we offered any positional player a qualifying offer under Arnold?

No, but who would that have been other than Adames? 

It’s not like we’ve been dealing position players before it got to that point, except guys like Collins and Durbin who we apparently did not see as part of our long-term future.

I expect Contreras to be the second. With Turang it’s possible that the current middle infield depth allows us to part with him sooner. 

[liveforoctober]

2 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

No, but who would that have been other than Adames? 

It’s not like we’ve been dealing position players before it got to that point, except guys like Collins and Durbin who we apparently did not see as part of our long-term future.

I expect Contreras to be the second. With Turang it’s possible that the current middle infield depth allows us to part with him sooner. 

I was just asking. You said you've noticed we tend to run positional players to a QO and not trade them. I didn't know if I was missing someone other than Adames. I would offer that doing something once is not a tendency.

If it happens to Bill and Brice then we have a few data points.

[adambr2]

13 minutes ago, liveforoctober said:

I was just asking. You said you've noticed we tend to run positional players to a QO and not trade them. I didn't know if I was missing someone other than Adames. I would offer that doing something once is not a tendency.

If it happens to Bill and Brice then we have a few data points.

Yeah, trend was probably the wrong way to put it on my part. Either way I understand we are working with a limited sample size. 

It seems to me that we are more active in shopping high end pitchers than high end position players prior to their contracts expiring, but I’m sure they approach each situation on a case by case basis depending on the organizational depth at that position, the offers that they get, and other factors.

[cragi]

Brewers FO has been flipping players for prospects with a high success rate for a while now. I dont think its fair to pick out a micro trend of one set of prospects returned exceeding those of the other. 

That said, the org desperately needed depth and they have been building just that with their unique draft approach, international pipeline and flips.

But i think the bigger question is how is the league going to adjust to the brewers strategy, which would dilute it? if so and maybe anyways, the brewers depth is create organizational pressure now, and so at what point do they move off this approach and start thinking about bigger pieces as their depth is pretty well solved.

[homer]

I think there's an injury risk factor with a pitcher you don't necessarily have with a position player. I think that needs to be accounted for in the Burnes trade. 

[cragi]

another point ive seen others make is there is a disproportionate injury risk to a pitcher's last year relative to a positional player