monty57

[/i]This is a snappy line, but it doesn't seem to make any sense. Sorry if it was unclear. The analogy was to compare someone making a decision for present day utility, which hurts you financially in the future. The Brewers structured the contract the way they did in order to fit Ramirez onto the 2012 roster when they couldn't afford his "market rate" in the 2012 payroll. They disregarded the future effects for current utility. Now they may have to pay someone to take him off their hands, and paying $8-10MM in 2014 for Ramirez to play elsewhere hurts the 2014 Brewers. That contract is now a big reason we may end up doing salary dump trades. Baseball doesn't have a foreclosure process, but being forced to pay for someone to take a player off your hands is about as close as it comes. I know your point here is to assert, without actually documenting, that you're smarter than other people. No it's not. It's that I've unfortunately been correct a couple of times in which I wish I was incorrect. Being correct doesn't mean your smarter. Intelligent people disagree with each other all the time. I suppose I could go dig out some old IQ test results if you are looking for documentation, but I'm sure most people on this site could do the same thing... there are a lot of smart people here. "Ridiculed" may not have been the correct term. A few of us have been told a number of times that we "live in fantasy land" or "aren't based in reality." This offseason, when I said the Brewers were heading downhill and the Lohse signing was a band-aid that wouldn't help much, and was done to help raise ticket sales, I had a few posters saying not-so-nice things about my "negativity." Does that count as ridicule? I'm not sure what your parameters are. Really, I look at things from a business and financial aspect. I can't scout a baseball player... I don't have that skill. But I run a couple of businesses, so it gives me some insight into business that others might not have. Part of what I do includes doing some financial research on businesses. From that aspect, in my opinion, the Brewers have not been run well lately, and the current state of the franchise seemed to be a pretty obvious outcome based on moves we've made in the recent past. I want to be optimistic, but I don't want to be blinded by fandom. It seems many more are jumping on the "negative bandwagon" I've been riding for a while. But again, I wish the other smart people had been right all along and that I had been wrong. I just don't think that's the case.

This season, Ramirez has 181 ABs, so he's been able to play about 1/2 time. We don't know where he will be going forward, but the injury that has kept him out so far this year has him on the DL right now. I hope that the Brewers keep him off the field until he is 100%, even if that means he doesn't get another PA this season, and even if it means surgery. So far, with their "go for it at all costs" mentality, they have thrown him on the field on injured knees, so I hope they see the light at some point, and just let him heal. Sad as it is to say, I doubt the Brewers will do this. But, looking at that 50% playing time, would give up anything for the right to pay $25MM for 1.5 seasons of Ramirez, with a .773 OPS only playing 1/2 the games. If the injury lingers (which knee injuries have been known to do), you could get 80-90 games out of him, maybe 10-15 HR, and pay him $25MM. Or, he could end up needing surgery in which case you pay the $25MM plus the medical costs and get nothing in return. There is just too much risk there. If, during the offseason, he can work out for some team and show that he has full mobility and speed, then they can decide if they're willing to pay $20MM for a season of Ramirez. He has enough of a track record that teams won't necessarily have to see how he hits in live games, but he does have to prove himself healthy.

Remember it is 3/36 for ARam. We've gotten 203 games from him for thus far 11+mil. Tossing 8mil is essentially just changing the backloaded contract to an even 12mil every season. We'd have paid 19mil roughly for 1.6seasons of the 3/36mil contract. This is kind of like the logic of the couple losing their house to foreclosure who still try to convince themselves that taking the home equity loan for the trip to Hawaii was worth it. If he healthy and gets hot i totally agree. And that is the key point. Trading for a player with a bad knee is the kind of move that can get a GM fired. There is too much risk that the injury will persist. The potential upside isn't worth the risk that Ramirez may spend a good portion of the remainder of his contract on the DL, and may see his numbers drop off due to the injury and age. Combining the injury, the fact that he'll be 36 next year, and the $20MM 2014 price tag, I can't imagine anyone would give up anything of value for Ramirez. As I and others have said, the only hope of trading him is if he shows he's healthy, and since he's on the DL and the deadline's approaching, he probably won't be able to show he's healthy until after the trade deadline. That could mean an August deal, as he will likely make it through waivers, or it could mean an offseason deal. I still think the $20MM paycheck will weigh heavily in a deal, so even if he's healthy, there's a good chance the Brewers would need to eat some money in order to bring anything back in trade, which could smell an awful lot like a salary dump deal. So, we're hoping he heals fully and quickly (which has not been the case so far since he injured the knee in Spring Training), and that a free spneding, big money team in need of a third baseman/DH will be so blinded by playoff lust that they will look past the $20MM contract. That seems to leave the Dodgers, Red Sox and Yankees, and the Red Sox and Yankees have been spending the past couple of years trimming payroll to get below the luxury tax limit. Maybe we should've just traded him to the Dodgers last year when they were looking to give us some of their pitching prospects (Eovaldi? Lee?) for Ramirez. Oh yeah, those of us who were hoping that would happen were being ridiculed because we were going to be a playoff team this year and Ramirez was having a good season and his signing was one of the best things Melvin had ever done.

Between Richie Sexson and Zach Greinke, what veterans did we trade away to bring good young talent into the system? One could argue that Sexson really didn't bring good young talent into the system, but instead brought vast quantities of mediocre talent to the MLB roster. So that pretty much leaves one trade in Melvin's decade plus tenure as a GM that brought us a good prospect (Segura), and that was a trade he didn't want to make, but the ineptitude of the MLB roster he put together forced his hand to trade Greinke. There's a lot to franchise building. Everyone looks at the trades that did happen and says that's all that could've happened. Whenever anyone mentions that Melvin possibly could done something differently, they are living in "fantasy land" and told that if something didn't happen, it never could have occurred. We could have traded Lawrie for a young pitcher, we could have traded Hart, Weeks, Fielder, etc rather than extending them or letting them walk via free agency. We could have not signed some of the expensive 30-something free agents we've signed. There are a lot of "could haves" that would have changed things. There is a possibility that we wouldn't have made the playoffs we did, but there's the possibility that we could've made some playoffs we didn't, and there is definitely good reason to believe that we could be in far better shape as a franchise than we currently are. No, I haven't "forgotten how long it was since the last playoff run," but I think some here have never learned the lesson in life that if you continually give up tomorrow for today, tomorrow will eventually bite you in the butt. Looking towards the future doesn't mean giving up on today, but playing for a window does mean giving up on the future. There is an in-between, but that often requires doing things fans may not immediately recognize as a good move, and Attanasio is unwilling to do anything that some drunk bleacher creature may get upset about. He should look north at how Ted Thompson operates. Fans hated Thompson for some of his moves, but they forgave him when the Packers did a quick turn-around and once again became perennial contenders. Now Packer fans don't flinch when big name players are discarded, because they believe that the GM knows what he's doing. But somehow, Attanasio thinks these same fans won't understand similar moves if they were made by the Brewers. But, this is a thread about Wily Peralta, so all of this discussion should really be moved to one of the many "state of the franchise" threads.

How does Ramirez hold negative value in trade? I think the negative value only comes at full price for him. But every couple million say to 10mil sent to a team makes him a fantastic value/get for the potential return he may provide. I feel like 8mil. sent over in the trade completely changes ARam's value for trade. 4mil for next year and the other 4mil for buyout. He's injured yet still outperforms many 3b with the bat including MiddleBrooks. This really all boils down to who gets Young, what San Diego asks for Headley and then it's Aramis with the kind of bat that typically outperforms both those two options. When you are trying to win a WS, Aramis has the kind of bat that can propel a team more likely than what Marco Scutaro's did for San Fran last season. But it's Scutaro's kind of run that will make it too enticing for a team to pass on Aramis if they truly see him as that piece that could take them over the top. Imagine ARam behind David Ortiz? I've said this before, but if you have to pay $10MM to get rid of someone, that's negative value. If his knee hadn't gotten hurt, and if he had continued to hit like he did last year, then teams may overlook the $20MM he's owed for next year's service. I still don't think they'd get a top prospect for him, but they may have gotten something in addition to the salary relief. Unfortunately, he did hurt his knee, and it seems to be at least somewhat serious. Right now he's on the DL and the trade deadline is coming up quickly. This entire season he's either been on the DL or on very limited duty because of the knee, so GM's are going to be very wary of trading for him. There is a chance that he will need to miss significant portions of the remainder of his contract, but he is owed the money whether he plays or not. I just know that if I were a GM (even of a big-market team), I wouldn't take the risk that Ramirez's knee was going to hold out. Even if he didn't have a huge payday next year, I wouldn't give up anything of value because of that risk. Add in the big contract in 2014, and in my opinion, any positive from his play is more than offset by the mix of his injury and his contract. I'll stop talking about Ramirez now, as this is a thread about Gallardo (someone who does have significant trade value).

Attanasio makes that call, not Melvin, and I think he's been a big factor behind the Brewers continual "all in" mentality. However, money talks. If he believes that ticket sales (the main source of revenue) are going to take a big hit next year, in a season in which they are almost certain to have a payroll near $100MM without making some moves, he will seriously have to consider how to go forward. He can do like he did this past offseason, believing that one more big salaried player will put them over the edge. I don't think this is a good idea, but it's possible Attanasio will feel this way. Or, he can do whatever possible to shed some salary. Hart's gone, and Axford (if not traded) will probably not be offered arby, but that's not enough. Weeks and Ramirez are probably in the salary dump category, so the decision will be whether they should pay them to see what they bring to the 2014 club, or find a team that will take them off our hands for nothing other than picking up the contract. Gallardo could bring back some decent talent, and Lohse could probably be traded, although we may have to pick up some salary if we want anything back in return. I don't think Attanasio will go status quo. It will likely be one of the above choices. The question in my mind then becomes: "If he goes with choice B, how far is he going to go?" If they trade Gallardo or Lohse, is that enough, or would they look at it as a situation that without Gallardo, they might as well rip off the whole band-aid? As we saw with Grienke, trading a player doesn't mean the world ends. It is possible that we trade Gallardo, Lohse, Aoki, etc and get some young talent in the system, take a step back next year to see what we've got, and then start climbing uphill. Our reluctance to think about the future for the past several years has put us in a precarious position, but acceptance is the first step to recovery. I still hold out hope that we can turn the ship around in a few years rather than a decade, but the longer we try to pretend we're the Yankees, the longer the down period is likely to be.

Ramirez would really need to prove that his knee magically healed to 100% in two weeks for Ramirez to have any trade value at all. I think the best case for the Brewers is that he heals up enough to get traded in August. Next best would be for them to get something for him in the offseason. In the likely event that his injury will linger until he has it fixed, the best scenario may be that someone claims him on revocable waivers and the Brewers let them have him in order to save $20MM+. I do, however, hold out hope that other teams believe that Gallardo's troubles are temporary and trade a good package to get him. I just think Ramirez would bring negative value to the trade assuming the Gallardo trade will be done prior to the trade deadline.

I saw this quote from Scott Boras regarding his client Matt Harvey. Boras is not Segura's agent, but I thought this shows how "the other side" sometimes thinks. "Usually the team will come to you, it is not up to the player to start negotiations. I would also say this, where the team wants to go in these situations and what the true value of the player is are not often that close." Again, Boras is not Segura's agent, but since we heard the Brewers approached him, and we haven't heard anything since, there is a chance that he is perceiving himself in terms of what he's worth as a free agent and not considering the value of the guarantee. If he shares the opinion stated in the above quote, then I think the Brewers need to accept the decision, understand that his plan is to leave as a free agent, and plan accordingly. I am not at all in favor of giving a pre-arby Segura a Castro-type deal. Castro got a $6MM signing bonus in his 2nd arby year (signed the deal in August), and got $5MM for his third arby year. You would need a lot of savings from there on out to make up for the $10MM overpay in the first two years. If Segura demands a deal like Castro's, I hope the Brewers go year-to-year and trade him when he's in his arby years. The only reason teams would take the significant risk of signing a player long-term while he's in his pre-arby years is that they get a significant monetary discount in exchange for the guaranteed cash.

Peralta's always had the "stuff," he just needs to keep the walks down. If he gets that fixed, he could definitely be a top-of-the-rotation guy. If he can't, then he'll be one of those frustrating guys who can flirt with a no-hitter one game and have a horrible outing the next. While difficult, it is possible for a guy with an upper-90's fastball to suddenly find control, while it's impossible for a guy with control to suddenly find an upper-90s fastball. This seems part of Melvin's strategy for pitchers. I just hope Peralta is able to find a permanent cure to the wildness he's shown his entire minor league career.

I agree bcd80. I like Segura and am very glad we got him last year. He's had a great start to this season, but I don't expect him to be a .900 OPS guy for his career... that's Ryan Braun territory. He's going to have his ups and downs like everyone, and he doesn't have enough games under his belt to determine how good he will be. We all need to step back and not put too much weight on half a season, whether it's a good half or a bad one. If he'd be willing to sign a deal like the one Altuve signed (probably a little higher $ value), I'd do it in a heartbeat. If he expects a Starlin Castro type deal, I'd let him go year-to-year and make sure we have some good SS's in the low minors, because he's probably going either be traded in 4-5 years or walk as a free agent. We could really win in an Altuve-type deal, or at the worst case, it's not too big a blunder if Segura doesn't live up to his play during a couple months of this season. If we signed him to a Castro-type deal, he'd have to keep playing like he has to start this season just to "play up to" the contract. If he has a so-so career, the contract could be an albatross for many years. Just a guess, but I think Melvin approached Segura with a deal more like the Altuve deal, while Segura had a Castro-type deal in mind. Let's see if they can find a comparable middle ground. As I've said before, I have no problem with players asking for the moon, and if they don't get it playing year-to-year for free agency. I just think the Brewers need to treat it as a business, realize those players are not going to re-sign, and do what's best for the franchise, which is often to trade them before they walk. Not saying this is the path Segura will take, but if it is, we as fans (and the Brewers as an organization) have to accept it. As to Altuve, good for him and good for the Astros. He's a good enough player to sign to a relatively small contract like this. It keeps a fan favorite on the field at a time there isn't much to cheer about in Houston, and it is a very tradeable contract. Limited risk for the team, certainty for the player. This are the type of deal the Brewers need to look for... not multi-year, eight figure per year contracts to 30-somethings.

His contract is $11M each year of his contract. That is not back-ended contract. ARam has a back-ended contract. A team picking up Lohse would pick up approx $4.3M for this year and $11M for 2014 & 2015. The Brewers may include money to get a better prospect or may package with someone that has negative value, but there is definitely positive value in his contract at this point. And if I was a playoff team and all I cared about was the results I would get from the pitcher this season, I would rather have Lohse then Gallardo. From Cot's Kyle Lohse rhp 3 years/$33M (2013-15) 3 years/$33M (2013-15) signed by Milwaukee as a free agent 3/25/13 13:$11M, 14:$11M, 15:$11M $7M of 2013 salary deferred, to be paid in 2016-18, reducing contract’s present-day total value to $31.95M annual performance bonus: $0.35M for 190 innings He's owed $11MM for playing this year, but $7MM of that is deferred to 2016-18. The Brewers are only really paying him $4MM this year, so roughly $2MM of the $33MM owed has been paid by the Brewers so far. You can negotiate whatever you want in a trade, but a team picking up Lohse right now would owe around $31MM for 2.5 years of Lohse

Not offering arby to Axford is probable, and may keep them in the low-to-mid $90MM's, but with the bumps in other salaries, unless they trade some salaries, they're going to have a big payroll next year, mostly tied into a handful of players. I guess there's a chance we won't have to pay Braun for 50-100 games, so that would have an impact I hadn't figured in. I don't want to take this off-topic, but I think part of (maybe most of) the discussion of trading away some of their high-priced guys is due to next year's obligations mixed with fear of falling attendance. Increased expenses with falling revenues can cause owners to take dramatic action. It will get better after 2014, but if we don't get some good young prospects for our "trading chips," we will have less payroll but significantly less talent, especially if Lohse "hits a wall" in or prior to his third year when he's 36. We'd have Lucroy, Segura, and Gomez along with a now-past-his-prime Braun, with below average pitching and a bunch of average prospects taking the other positions. The extra money we'd have to spend won't be enough to fill the holes through free agency, and we wouldn't really have any trading chips, unless we'd do something really dumb like trading away the guy will get with next year's (likely top 5) draft pick. This is why I've wanted to make some trades in the recent past, and why I'm worried that many of this year's "trading chips" have lost some or all of their value due to injuries or poor play. Right now, I'm really hanging my hopes on Gallardo being able to bring back at least one really good prospect, and Aoki at least bringing back an everyday player, because I don't think we'll get much for Lohse, Weeks or our relievers, and Ramirez and Hart are probably both untradeable due to injuries. I don't think Braun could be traded even if we wanted to, and I don't think we'd trade Gomez. Fortunately, it appears the Brewers' management has finally decided it's time to look to the future. I just hope it isn't too little, too late.

Potential replacement for Mike Gonzalez when he's traded?

They may not "need" to be traded, but I don't see us being able to get rid of Ramirez or Weeks' contracts, and Gomez and Braun aren't getting traded. The Brewers' ownership group is paying $88MM for a last place team this year, and I really don't think they want to pay $100MM next year for a last place team, which I would guess is their outlook right now. They're probably wringing their hands over the projected attendance numbers and trying to figure out how not to lose lots of money next year. I don't think they can sell the "average Joe" that these past two years have been unlucky, and the same group of guys are worth buying season tickets to see. This unfortunately is what leads owners to green light fire sales. I'd like to see them get good young players for some of our good-but-expensive pieces, but we may just start dumping decent players for nothing other than salary relief.

Greg, of course everything I say is an opinion, same as everyone else. I try to say "seems like," "likely," "probably," etc as often as I can, but I can't put a disclaimer on everything. Most everyone seems to think that we can't get anything back in a Lohse trade unless we pay a decent portion of his contract. I don't see how that can be anything but a negative value. Maybe you see it differently, but I know if one of my employees did something that made me pay to get rid of the problem, I wouldn't praise them for it. I really hope I'm wrong about a lot of what I see regarding the Brewers, just like I wish I had been wrong for the past couple of years. I really hope Lohse is able to bring back a good young player without us having to pay a big portion of his contract. But, in trying to look at the whole picture, I don't see it happening. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

I agree splitter. Gallardo's lost velocity, but I think his value is dependent on whether teams think it's permanent or not. He's only 27, and he didn't get abused when he was young, so it's likely the issue is arm fatigue (WBC), mechanical issues, or an injury. I'd think the Brewers would know about an injury, and you'd hope someone would've spotted a mechanical issue by now. I'd hope teams would be able to look past a temporary issue and offer us something of value, but if we're not offered much, than I think we're better to hold onto Gallardo in hopes that this is indeed a temporary issue. If it is, he'll have plenty of value at this time next year.

Yes, Lohse alone has value, but the whole package, which includes the guaranteed contract that is attached to Lohse, has negative value. They cannot be viewed separately. That means that whoever is behind the signing made a colossal mistake. How many people could get away with a $15MM mistake (in an $88MM budget) and still be considered remotely competent? This isn't the end of an eight-year deal, where the team got loads of value and now have to pay for some mediocrity. We're a few months into the deal and already saying that we'll need to eat $15MM just to get a B level prospect back! The Brewers as a whole are hurt by this, which is what I care about. The guy they'll likely get will probably top out as a role player, while payroll will need to be cut significantly. They were already a sinking ship and Melvin/Attanasio went and shot another cannonball through the deck.

Monty while you want to argue his contract or his loss in ability, what Lohse is doing isn't unprecendented. Just look at Hiroki Kuroda. 37 and 38 aged seasons in the AL East and his ERA for they Yankees sits at 3.13 in 51Starts. And every time there's a $100MM lottery, someone wins. However, if your financial plans hinge on winning the lottery, you're probably going to be disappointed. Of course there are players (Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Jamie Moyer) who can remain in a starting rotation into their late 30's or even early 40's. However, the vast majority of MLB starting pitchers' careers are over by then. It is much more likely that Lohse will "hit a wall" before his contract is up than it is that he will defy the odds and pitch well for the next two seasons. As a GM, do you want to take that risk? Are you willing to give up anything of value and inherit a big guaranteed obligation for the "privilege" of taking on that risk? Monty, in today's game, the money doesn't have to be what it used to be. The Brewers are on the hook for two more seasons...if they kick in half of what's owed, they can get the prospects they're after, and the other team is only paying for next season. This would get someone else a good pitcher, and it actually gets the Brewers out of one season of the deal they've already guaranteed. I have no doubt that money has value. That's different than saying that Lohse has value. What you're telling me is that Lohse plus $15MM could buy a decent prospect. I'd argue that $15MM alone would buy a pretty darned good prospect, so why not just keep Lohse and offer a team $15MM for their prospect? It seems to me that in your scenario Lohse has negative value, as the "B level" prospect everyone's espousing isn't worth the $15MM we'd have to pay just to get rid of Lohse. I doubt the money owed to Lohse is that scary to some of the big market teams. The mindset that anything over $10 million is big money in today's market is just living in the past. The biggest reasons teams didn't sign Lohse this offseason were (1) they didn't think he was worth giving up a first round draft pick, and (2) they figure that he will "hit a wall" before his contract is up prior to the end of the contract... he wanted a multi-year deal and the Brewers were the only team crazy enough to give him one. The money is an issue, but not as much as these two points. The future "control" probably acts as a negative in our trade negotiations (meaning Lohse would probably be worth more in trade if he became a free agent at year's end than he is worth being under a guaranteed contract until he's 36). Now I'll get a little off topic. $10MM (really the remaining $28MM or so we owe Lohse) is still a good amount of money, especially relative to what a pre-arby guy makes. But to me, percentages (more than nominal values) are what matter. We have to weigh aggregate salary inflation with an individual team's payroll inflation, and while the Brewers have seen a rise in payroll, recent (and probably future) payroll gains in Milwaukee are dwarfed by those in big media markets. This has created (and will continue to create) a situation in which player salaries will continue to rise faster than Milwaukee will be able to keep up. This is why I've been so negative on the Brewers' "plan" for the past few years. An $11MM payroll is somewhere around 12.5% of this year's Brewer payroll. It's only around 5% of the Dodgers' payroll (if they even have a max), so we can't just say "in today's market," because "today's market" differs from team to team. The problem is that Attanasio wants to run the Brewers as if they played in the same market as the Yankees or Dodgers. Some laud the Brewers when they sign a "market value" contract/extension, but the "market" is set by teams with far greater resources than the Brewers, so they've really got to be careful when offering anyone "market value." Simply put, we need 25 players, so if everyone made the same, we would spend 4% on each player. Therefore, anyone taking up 10% of our payroll means that two players have to play for around 1% of payroll, which is around league minimum. Anyone making 15% of payroll means that around 4 players have to play for around league minimum. Signing Lohse necessitated around three more league minimum guys to step up. As you can see, the problem is that the more eight figure salaries the Brewers have, the more need for league minimum guys. Posters have went on and on about why we don't have much good, young talent, but the fact is that we don't have it. The aggregate moves (or non-moves) made by Melvin and company have left the cupboards bare. When you have to pay someone league minimum, and you don't have good prospects, you end up playing whatever you can afford, which may mean putting four or five shortstops and three catchers on the field at the same time, or pulling re-treads from the bullpen to start games. If we had a strong farm system, we could possibly afford to have so much of our payroll tied into a handful of players. I wouldn't recommend it, but it could be possible. Playing for the "window," mixed with poor drafting and development have left us without a strong farm system, which makes tying up all of our payroll on a few players a recipe for disaster. This is why the Brewers can't be run like the big boys. Paying "market value" for more than a few players will kill them. Back to topic, to your point in trade, you're correct that the salary isn't as big a concern for the big market guys as it is the small market guys. The biggest reason I don't think he's worth a lot is his age, and the fact that no one really wanted him prior to this season. His back-ended contract is just another negative. It's a good sum of money for a player who is likely to "hit a wall" before the contract's up. If the Brewers eat the contract in order to trade him, they are admitting he has negative trade value. I'd trade Lohse and Ramirez together for nothing, just to shed their salaries, but I don't think Ramirez is tradable at this point... maybe as an August deal, but I doubt it. Lohse alone might get you a low minors guy with some upside and warts or a failed prospect like the Cubs got for Feldman, but it all depends on how gun shy his contract makes teams. This is pretty much where I am. I don't see any way Ramirez is traded, which is why I really wanted them to trade him last year when the Dodgers were apparently willing to give up something like Eovaldi or Lee for him, while taking on his entire salary. It's why I wanted to trade Hart last year. It's why I'd like to get something for Lohse now when maybe, if we pay someone to take him, we could potentially get a back-of-the-rotation starter or middle reliever for him, but more importantly will get rid of his contract, as we are very likely still going to be paying Ramirez and Weeks next year. If we don't trade Lohse now, even for a miniscule return, I'd bet that people will be screaming for his DFA before the end of his contract.

Whoever would trade for Lohse would still have to have him and pay for the next two years. For a young player, that's a bonus, but for a mid-30's player, it's not. That's the reason no one wanted to sign him this offseason. It wasn't that no one thought he could be decent this year, it's that he will likely hit a wall at some point during the contract, and no one wants to be stuck with a washed up pitcher making eight figures. We also signed him to a deal with a low 1st year salary which balloons in years 2 & 3 and includes deferred money after he's done playing. Therefore, the best year of his ability is gone, but very little of the monetary obligation has been spent, so whoever would trade for him would pay almost the whole contract, and get him for the decline years. Meanwhile, Ramirez is on the DL with a knee injury which has affected him the entire season. He may not even be playing when the trade deadline comes around. He's still owed around $25MM, and I would not be surprised if he misses a significant portion of the remainder of his contract due to his injuries. Huge injury risk, old player and huge monetary obligation. I can't imagine anyone will trade for him this month. Maybe this offseason if he proves to be 100% healthy, but not before the deadline. So no, I don't think the Red Sox or anyone else will be lining up to give us three or four top prospects in return for taking a couple of bad contracts off our hands.

Okay here's the thing. Thornburg is a long RP/SP in your mind. Hellweg is a SP. Your scenario of Sanchez coming up to be a RP removes the long RP role Thornburg occupies. One that Figaro had before Burgos/Estrada's injuries with Gorzo/Hand. I don't know if Sanchez is a long RP but the team at this point is short on those. I hate the idea of a "long man" to begin with (someone who never pitches unless the starter gets rocked early or injured). Most relievers are converted starters, so any MLB-level middle reliever ought to be able to go more than one inning in an emergency from time to time, and anyone with any concept of how to build a bullpen will have some guys with options so you can bring a fresh arm from AAA if the pen gets abused. So, reserving a valuable bullpen spot for a designated "long man" seems pretty dumb to me. That hatred gets magnified when a young arm is used in this role. If you feel you have to have a "long man" in the pen, at least let it be someone who you don't care if you destroy their arm, their rhythm, and their confidence by not using him for two weeks and then throwing him to the wolves. Thornberg and Hellweg both have some promise. Maybe it's in the rotation, maybe it's in the pen. Neither should be considered for the "long man" role. I'd rather re-sign Livan Hernandez and let Hellweg/Thornberg sit in AAA. If one or both of them fails, and cannot become a viable option for a better role, then fine, stick them in the "long man" role. I don't think we're at the point of giving up on either of them yet.

I don't see Melvin trading either Lohse or Gallardo if he's not getting a close-to-ready SP in return. If he doesn't get someone for the 2014 rotation he's just going to have to sign another free agent this offseason. What about a Boston trade with something like Lohse/Axford for one of Barnes or Webster (and some lower-level fliers)? Melvin made a comment a while back that any moves he makes will be for 2-3 years from now. That doesn't mean he wouldn't take an MLB-ready guy, but I think it means that the guy doesn't have to be MLB ready. If we make a few veteran-for-prospect trades this season, I don't think we'll be expected to compete next year, making it a good opportunity to allow our own MLB-ready guys to battle it out in the MLB rotation, so we'll see what we have for 2015 and beyond. If we traded for some stud talent that isn't quite MLB ready, I'd be upset if we signed a couple of FA starters that kept our MLB ready prospects in the minors. Not because I think our current prospects are great, but we should have several #3-5 starters there, and they need MLB playing time to see where they stand. Then, when the studs we traded for make it to the show, we'll know who will fill out the rotation, who will be in the 'pen, and who won't make it as MLB players.

The discussion of Francisco at third got me thinking about Ramirez. Of course we have to shop him, but I don't think we'll get much (even salary relief) from a guy with a knee that could put him down for an extended period (maybe even a whole season) at any time. This latest injury should be a slap in the face to any team that thought about trading for him, and I would be really surprised if we get any decent offers for him this season. If we find that we aren't going to get anything in return in trade, I hope the Brewers bite the bullet and Ramirez has surgery immediately. That way, he could potentially be healthy for an offseason trade, or if nothing else, would be 100% going into next season. If we're going to pay him $20MM for his remaining year, we might as well get regular play out of him. In that case, we should be playing Francisco at 3B every day, and Halton at 1B every day just to see how they hold up with every day playing time.

Because he's "unproven." With very few exceptions (like bringing Segura up to give the fans immediate satisfaction from Greinke trade), we'd rather play "proven bad" guys out of position, or re-sign "proven good" guys to mammoth deals than let a non-elite "unproven" guy get a shot.

If a healthy Ryan Braun had 10 HR after a couple of months, and a healthy Yuni Betancourt had 10 HR in the same period, who would you assume would be better going forward? Why? If it's because Braun has historically been a far better player, then you have just defeated your own argument. Over a short period, almost anything can happen, and you shouldn't assume that an anomaly over a short period will become the norm going forward. Gallardo's problems are a concern, but many/some are chalking it up to his participation in the World Baseball Classic (arm fatigue or the lack of a normal season's preparation). If that's not it, then it has to be either an injury or a mechanical problem. If he is indeed injured, then his value will be adjusted accordingly. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe that a healthy 27-year-old should be permanently damaged goods. How much his trade value is effected by his drop in velocity will most likely be determined by whether or not the receiving team believes the drop in velocity is a permanent thing, or whether it is a temporary thing. I certainly wish he didn't have the drop in velocity, but I wouldn't assume that it destroys his trade value.

This from cbssportsline.com this morning: Diamondbacks, Brewers discussing possible trade The Diamondbacks and Brewers have begun discussions on a possible deal involving starting pitcher Yovani Gallardo, and the name of top pitching prospect Tyler Skaggs has come up, CBSSports.com Baseball Insider Jon Heyman reports Wednesday. A deal does not appear imminent, but the Diamondbacks and Brewers could make good trading partners as the deadline approaches. The Diamondbacks received a win from their rotation for the first time in more than three weeks Wednesday, and are looking for established starting pitchers who are under contract next season. I've been saying all along that Gallardo should be worth something close to what Shields garnered. Skaggs would certainly be a "high upside, MLB ready" guy with the potential to be a top-of-the-rotation guy for the next six season at a reasonable price. I don't think most of our "chips" will bring back much value, but trading Gallardo could be the one move that really could make a difference. Get someone of Skaggs' ability for Gallardo, get decent pieces for Aoki and Ramirez and free up a lot of money with Gallardo, Ramirez and Weeks deals, let the prospects play next year, reassess our situation prior to the 2015 season, and we could turn this around in a couple of years instead of floundering for the next decade.