monty57

But if they were to turn around and invest that money into scouting/development, I think that's huge. I think it's huge if it means they don't have to borrow that $3M to help cover team payroll. They were over budget going into the year, ticket sales are likely not going to meet projections, so without some salary cutting, they are going to have to borrow just to pay this year's players, which means less money for payroll in future years.

I think I like this move. For a guy who a month ago I didn't think they would be able to move, the got $3M in salary relief and a young guy with the potential to be pretty good. Sure he may never "find it," but at least the potential is there. If he never makes it, and all we end up with is salary relief, it's probably worth the trade. If Barrios comes close to reaching his potential, it's a very good deal.

His trade value is lost with his contract. If a team could have him for league minimum they might take a flier on him, but no one is going to trade for him and pick up his contract.

If the stories about him being kind of a "pitching coach/mentor" are true, Lohse could be good for the young guys. If you want him out of the rotation, make him a long man, but keep him around to help the youngsters adjust in the "Cardinal way" as opposed to the "Brewer way." Heck, I'd probably keep him around for the season and offer him a minor league pitching coach job for next year in an effort to help our prospects out.

I'm not an expert on these rules, but I think we'd need to make a qualifying offer to get a compensation pick. The QO would be somewhere around $16M for one year, which he would certainly accept, meaning he'd be a Brewer for another year at around $16M... no thanks.

I'm just trying to make a point about taking WAR too literally. Agree. The "replacement player" doesn't exist, and is just a baseline to try to show a player's worth. It's a "handy stat" just like OPS is a "handy stat" that gives a decent idea of a player's worth. It's not a be-all/end-all thing. Because Segura is average-at-best defensively at a position in which defense is at least as important as offense, I think it's relevant to use a stat that at least tries to include defense in its mix.

Who was our "replacement level" the last few years? Last year, Segura had 0.0 WAR, so he was the epitome of our "replacement level player." Not everyone has that and this WAR stat acts like you can just pluck a guy from nowhere and he's going to be a competent MLB player. If half the teams are playing someone worse than him at either SS/2B there must not be all these replacements sitting around as the stat implies with it's name. If you don't see something you like trade him, otherwise I'm fine with keeping him and Sardinas coming up and splitting some time at 3B, 2b, SS and see how he hits. It's less than half the teams, but there should be teams for which Segura would be an upgrade. The question is whether he's a significant enough upgrade for them to trade anything of value. Early on, it seemed that teams were interested, but that may not be the case now as it's beginning to look like the hot start in 2013 was the fluke, and Segura is more like the player Baldkin listed a few posts back. I'm okay with Segura coming back if we can't get anything in return, but next year he hits arby so he will be making seven figures. If he and Sardinas are basically a coin flip as to who will provide more pure value, then Sardinas at 1/3 the price should be the odds-on favorite to put up more relative value, but he'll likely be on the bench because Segura has a voodoo effect on many people who still see him as that kid who had a hot couple of months in 2013. By next trade deadline (when Arcia should be ready for the MLB), if Segura is still playing the same ball he's played for the past two years, he will have less team control (and therefore less value) than he has today. If Sardinas outplays him and takes his spot, then he has zero trade value. We're probably putting too much into this, because Segura is basically a placeholder. If we trade him, we won't get much, and if we hold him, we won't get much. It's kind of a coin flip where heads is blah, and tails is blah. The only ways we win are either if we trade him for a lottery ticket that pays off, or if we hold him and the light bulb goes off and he "finds it." Neither seems to be the likely scenario, so it's probably not worth putting this much thought into it. I just wish that if teams were really interested early (when Segura was showing some life) we would have jumped and got some value, but who knows if that opportunity ever existed.

WAR schmor. Segura does not yet have a long enough track record to really know what kind of hitter he will be. I much rather keep him for another what? Three more controllable years? to find out. You're not going to get a great prospect in return for him anyhow, so what's the point of trading him? My interest in trading him was earlier when it appeared that he was in demand. The latest blurb hints that he may not be in demand. If we can't get a good return, there isn't a reason to trade him. If we can get a good prospect we should trade him because we have in-house replacements. For me, it's pretty much that simple. WAR has major sample size issues with defense as it is let alone using small samples for everything. If a guy plays 3 games and goes 3 for 9 with an intentional walk and has one great defensive play his WAR is going to look might good. That in no way implies he is truly better than Segura. I seriously doubt there are a number of bench or utility guys who are actually better than Segura. If WAR says they are then it's time to look at what WAR really tells us. IMHO not much. Agree that there are sample size issues, but Segura was 0.0 WAR last year, is on pace for around 1.0 WAR this year, and was pretty bad after his hot start in 2013. That gives him over two straight years of sub-par play. He still has the potential to improve, and he still has some years of relatively cheap team control, but to date he hasn't shown himself to be anything more than a roughly replacement level player. He's the type of guy you utilize when he's cheap and you have no better options, but you don't have any qualms about replacing when something better comes along. Maybe he's a "late bloomer," but making decisions based on that hope would be betting against the odds.

Put minimum plate appearances to 0, and he's rank 27. There are apparently 10 guys who have not met the minimum number of plate appearances (like Jed Lowrie) who have provided more value (per WAR) than Segura. I understand the usefulness of WAR as way to factor in all aspects when valuing a player(similar to PER in NBA). But I think it get over used as an absolute sometimes and people tend to act like you can just pluck anyone from the minors and stick them in there, and I just don't think it's that simple. I agree, but I used it because it does try to include defense. At SS that's very important, so using purely offensive stats doesn't work well in judging SS. 2+ years of replacement level WAR doesn't point to a really valuable player. As I said, his value comes from his team control and potential. Team control shrinks with every day that goes by, and he doesn't seem to be advancing towards the potential he showed early in 2013. I don't think we could "pluck anyone from the minors," but I think Sardinas has the potential to give us just as much value as Segura, and Arcia should blow him away when he's up in a year or so. If we were in the playoff race, I obviously wouldn't be a proponent of trading him right now because he's a known entity. However, in our current position, and with in-house options available, I think it's worth shopping him. Maybe Sardinas "sinks," but maybe he "swims," and now would be a good time to give him that shot. The latest blurb I quoted above hints that the Brewers might not get much for Segura. In that case we should hold onto him. But, if we could get something of value in trade, we should trade him. Edit: Looking at the WAR list, I noticed that Escobar is in line to provide around 5-5.5 WAR this season, so I looked up Cain, who is on pace for around 8.5-9 WAR, and Odorizzi around 3. Greinke gave the Brewers 3.8 WAR in 2011. Not trying to rehash the "what could have been" debate, I note this because this is why it is very important that we take the opportunity we now have to trade some vets in order to restock the system with young talent. If we are willing to trade away some top talent (Gomez, Lucroy), we could put together some really good teams in the future... not the "if everything goes right, we could be in the hunt for the 2nd wildcard."

I guess it depends on how you measure "Top SS." According to fangraphs, Segura's WAR has been: 2012 -0.2 (45 games) 2013 3.5 2014 0.0 2015 0.6 (through 77 games) In 2014, there were 32 other players who are classified as shortstop who provided more WAR than Segura. Since there are only 30 teams, that means there are a number of utility/bench players who provided more value than Segura. This year, there are 25 other players who are classified as shortstop who have provided more WAR than Segura. Since his hot start to the 2013 season, he has been a replacement level player. Any value he has derives from team control and potential.

Here's the blurb from MLBTraderumors: "The Brewers are officially open for business and “may be considering a rather big sale,” one competing team exec tells Heyman. Interest in Jean Segura is down due to his poor play since an early 2013 breakout, but Gerardo Parra‘s big year has lots of clubs asking about him. Mike Fiers, Wily Peralta and Francisco Rodriguez are drawing interest, and the Brewers are open to packaging some of those players to improve the return." Segura doesn't surprise me, as that's why I hoped they could trade him before rival GMs woke up. I am interested in seeing what Parra brings back, as he is certainly going to be traded. Seeing Peralta's name in there has my hopes up that they really are thinking of stockpiling prospects and not just retooling for a 2016 run.

It would have to be a negotiation point. I'm sure the Brewers won't find anyone who would pay the whole thing, so they'll likely eat it, and potentially part of what he's owed for the rest of the season. The deferred money is just a negative mark that Melvin will have to negotiate past. I don't expect the Brewers to get much for Ramirez, but I will be happy if they get something, even if it's only salary relief, which I think has a lot of value to the team at this point.

Ramirez is making a lot of money relative to his production. His recent hot streak has raised his season numbers up to .248/.297/.437/.734 and he's making $14M this year. Since this deal was drafted by Melvin, it of course includes deferred money, paying him $3M for the next two years. Therefore, whoever trades for him will owe him around $13MM for a couple of months... that's superstar money. Ramirez getting hot may have allowed for the Brewers to trade him, but they will not get much. If they ate the whole contract, they might be able to get a guy with potential to be a major league player, but of course they will not eat the entire contract, so they'll get a B-league prospect and salary relief. That's better than a month or so ago when they couldn't even get that.

One reason that we will NOT be open for business is that the Brewers rely on ticket/merch sales to cover operating costs more than other teams. I agree that Attanasio runs the team based on a fear of a decline in ticket sales, and agree that we will not do the rebuild that many think is necessary. To this I say that Parra, KRod, ARamirez, and Cotts will be moved, but Lind, CGomez, and Segura won't be. I agree with this as well, and I believe that they will get nothing back that will have a substantive positive effect on future Brewer teams from these trades. They will be mainly to save money this year, as they were over budget going into the season, and the poor play will lead to less ticket sales, concessions, parking, etc, so the ownership group will lose money unless they divest themselves of some payroll obligations. It also allows less diehard fans to have a glimmer of hope for the future of contention I agree with this as well (at least the way it's written). It's not about actually being good now or in the future, it is about giving fans the perception that they are "doing something," so that those fans will buy tickets. Unfortunately, in the small sample set that is the people I talk to, none of them believe this, so another year of signing a "name" free agent to bump ticket sales will likely have a diminished effect relative to previous years. I believe that Brewer fans would accept a rebuild, as long as the Brewers told them what they were doing. I think the one thing that will permanently lose fans is to give those fans the impression that the owners are only in it for the money, and are not really trying to win. That's what got attendance so low at the end of the Selig ownership, and Attanasio has to be careful not to let that happen to him.

Got in trouble trying to spike fan interest by trading "unknown" prospects for "name" veterans, trading a long-term strategy for immediate gratification. What it took the Brewer management several years to accomplish, the Padres did in one offseason.

To me competent means a guy in the middle of the pack like 14th and that holding his own but not really a star and that's what he is to me. I don't mind flipping him if the right thing presents itself as Sardinas probably won't be massive disaster like a Yuni. I agree with that assessment. If we didn't have competent MLB-ready replacements waiting in the wings, I would have no problem holding on to Segura in hopes that he "finds it" and gets closer to his potential. Since we have those replacements, I think we should trade Segura while he still has value and see if one of his replacements can handle the position. This was all about discussing trading minor leaguers for other minor leaguers and trying to explain why teams don't do it and went off on a tangent. The prospect-for-prospect thing was kind of a tangent. I don't believe Sardinas nor Rivera would net us anything meaningful in return at this point, so I mentioned that it would be a far better idea to trade Segura, kind of bringing it back to the topic that has been discussed in this thread and elsewhere. Feel free to continue the discussion on prospects-for-prospects. I just don't think it will happen. If the Brewers decide to hold onto Segura and trade Sardinas or Rivera, they would be add-ins to a bigger trade. If traded on their own, the probable target would be a middle reliever or a "proven" utility guy on the final year of his contract, not a good AAA prospect from another team.

He is #14 in OPS out of the 23 who qualify, so he's slightly below average offensively (in a down period for SS offense). When defense is added (WAR), he falls to #25 of the 30 SS in the league. To illustrate, #15 in OPS is Andrelton Simmons. About the same as Segura offensively (using OPS), but his defense gives him a 2.3 WAR vs Segura's 0.5. That's just this year. Last year he was worse, and in 2013, due to a phenomenal start, he was good. A positive WAR simply means he's better than the mythical "replacement player," which is theoretically meant to stand for some guy who could fill in the position, but should be replaced as soon as possible. A player should probably be able to post a 2.0 or so WAR if he doesn't want to be on constant lookout of being replaced. Segura has potential, but seems to be falling into this category... basically a placeholder until something better comes along, or until he gets too expensive for his limited production. I'm kind of surprised that there appears to be a decent market for Segura. My guess is that other GM's see the team control he has remaining, and still remember the hot start he had to his 2013 season. If we trade him, there's a chance we miss that "breakout" if it occurs, but if we hold on to him, and he remains at the level he has been at for the last couple of seasons, he will not have any trade value in the not-too-distant future, and will be let go when he gets expensive. Since Sardinas and Rivera are supposed to both be very good defensively, I don't think we'd lose much in switching from Segura to one (or some combo) of them. We may lose a tick offensively, but that should be made up with better defense. And there is the distinct possibility that the Sardinas/Rivera does hit as well as Segura, and if he does, then he essentially becomes an Andrelton Simmons-type player. Maybe not as good on defense, but certainly more valuable than Segura. This is Segura we're talking about here. He's not that good and we have competent replacements. If we can con another GM into giving us something of value in trade, we should jump at the deal.

Who says they won't make it? At the very least, both Sardinas and Rivera should provide much better defense than Segura, and it's not like he's that good with the bat. We might lose .050 OPS points, but overall (defense plus offense) we might actually get more from Sardinas/Rivera then we'd get from Segura. Since we aren't in the playoff hunt this season and likely won't be next year either, it seems the ideal time to capitalize on this. As far as "cheap for a few more years," Segura hits arby next year. He will still be less expensive than he would be as a free agent, but he'll have a seven figure salary. Once he gets a year or two into arby, it's seems likely that he won't have much trade value. He's an average hitting, below average fielding MLB SS, so a whole lot of his trade value comes from him being relatively cheap with a few years of team control. Holding onto him would just give the fans another name they know to cheer for in a losing season, while his trade value steadily diminishes. Meanwhile, Sardinas (formerly a highly rated prospect) and Rivera will be relegated to AAA/bench status, so we will never know if they could prove themselves. Just seems like we're giving up a lot of value (both current and potential) in order to sell a few more tickets next year. Edit: Per ESPN, Segura has 0.5 WAR this year, and 0.60 last year. What everyone is hoping for is that he really is the 3.9 WAR guy he showed in 2013, but that is seeming less and less likely. If he is truly a 0.50 - 1.00 WAR player, he is not that hard to replace... there are 24 guys in the majors better than him right now. Trade him while he's still viewed as "cheap with potential."

I know that doesn't sound great, but I'll ask you this. Do you think you'll get a better prospect than that for Sardinas or Rivera? No, and that's why we should trade Segura, since he apparently is being sought after and could therefore bring back a talented player or two. We then let our unproven guys (Sardinas / Rivera) get some playing time at the MLB level for the rest of this year and next, when it is unlikely we will be competing for a playoff spot. Arcia is far and away the best prospect the Brewers have, so while he may fall apart, it seems likely that by mid-season next year or the start of 2017, he will be our SS. If Sardinas and or Rivera can prove anything by that point, they can either be moved to another position, fill a spot as a utility guy, or maybe they will have shot their value up enough by then that we would be able to get a good return by trading them. There is little sense trading Sardinas or Rivera now when they have no value, but do have the potential to have value in the future. But then again, there is little sense in holding onto all of them, which is probably what will happen, so I don't know which is worse, holding all of them or trading the prospects who will bring back little in return.

Probably because GMs don't want to look foolish, and if the guy you traded away becomes good and the guy you get never makes it, you'll look foolish. Far less risk in trading away a short window of "team control" for multiple prospects, at least one of which will likely make the majors. Less risky still if the guy you get back already has some MLB experience. For the team getting the vet, most fans will always love the GM/owner who trades away unknown prospects for "an upgrade" mid-season.

The LOOGY effect

Fantasy deal for wonks who get more satisfaction out of their team having a highly rated system than they do out of watching major league baseball. Will never happen. ... In the meantime Brewer fans won't have to suffer watching the 2012-2013 Cubs in 2016-2017. In 2012, the Cubs' winning percentage was .403, in 2013 it was .439. The Brewers' current winning percentage is .422. The big difference was that Cubs were on an upward tack, while the Brewers are not. This isn't "major league baseball" that Brewer fans are viewing, and holding on to Lucroy won't make it "major league baseball" next year either. The options with Lucroy are either: 1) Trade him soon, when he should have the most value 2) Trade him in the future, but prior to free agency, when he will have diminished value 3) Let him walk in free agency, getting little in return 4) Extend him to a big money, multi-year deal into his mid-to-late 30's Since the odds of the Brewers being a playoff team next year are slim, and I really hate the idea of extending him well into his 30's, I would like for the team to get the most value from Lucroy, which should come from trading him while the receiving team still gets a lot of time on his current team-friendly contract. That sets up the next question. If the Brewers finally realize that trading valuable current assets is necessary to acquire valuable future assets, do they listen to the "wonks" and go for the greatest amount of talent, regardless of age or "provenness," or do they try to sell tickets by taking less talent, but making sure the players they get in return will step right in at the MLB level. If they are going to do the latter, then they may as well hold on to Lucroy until he walks as a free agent. What do you all see as the % that Lucroy gets dealt? Over 50%? Over 75%? This season 0%. I think the odds are greater that Lucroy gets extended than traded.

I was just referring to the attitude that if you don't win a title that it was all a waste. Basically that argument would lead to saying the Brewers should have never even existed, what's the point we never won. Or that every move was wrong because we didn't win it all. There's more to it. Yea of course Lohse has been brutal this year and it's shocking to see such a quick drop. but without him they wouldn't have almost won the division last year. That's not where I'm at. Where they lost me was when they decided that they were decided that trying to win it all in a one-year window (Prince's final year) was worth sacrificing the future, essentially guaranteeing that they would get worse and worse until they would eventually need a major rebuild when they could have stayed on track, limiting their chances in that one year, but increasing their ability to compete going forward. Since then, they have signed "name" players like Garza (to keep this remotely on topic) to keep fans interested enough to buy tickets, when the talent level on the team isn't really that high.

I believe that money matters a lot, but I do not believe that spending money just to spend money, or to get a "name" that will sell tickets, is the same as "trying to win." The Brewers did win when they had good prospects make it to the major league and contribute. They have not won by signing "name" players to contracts each of which eats up 10-15% of the team payroll for three or four years. They stopped gaining momentum and started going in reverse when they started getting "top heavy," with a handful of players eating up most of the payroll and a poor farm system trying to fill in the rest of the roster. The Brewers live in perpetuity, so making short term moves to try to prove to the fans that they are "trying to win" can have detrimental long term effects. With that mindset, I think of "trying to win" in a different context than someone who cares mainly about "right now." The best chance the Brewers have to win on any kind of continual basis is to do as much as possible to maintain a strong farm so they can continually have good, young, inexpensive players advancing to the major league ranks. As long as we are run under the premise of convincing the fans we're "trying to win," we will never win anything. Eventually, the fans will realize that we aren't really "trying to win," but rather are tying to sell tickets, and they will stop showing up. Then we will be exactly where we were at the end of the Selig tenure.

But for some reason, every time we sign another one of these guys as a free agent in the offseason, people cheer the deal because they're a "sure thing," while prospects fail all the time.