Fangraphs article on Lucroy

[Mike Sixel]

What would you give up for Lucroy from the Brewers? 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-case-for-trading-jonathan-lucroy/

 

I would do this:

 

Both college catchers they just drafted

One of Stewart, Hu, Gonsalves

Aaron Hicks and/or Kepler

Polanco

Suzuki

 

Yes, I'd deal up to 5 guys for him. MLB all star catcher, signed for good money......and that is worth more to this roster than the above guys (and by this roster, I mean over the next 5 years).

 

thoughts?

 

Of course, you then also deal Suzuki. You could give him to Milwaukee also, and they could then trade him maybe (hahahahaha).

[nicksaviking]

I wouldn't give up Stewart and Polanco for him, however I recoginze that's the kind of deal the Brewers will ask for and likely get.

 

He's got two years left on his deal which is good, but it's still not exactly long considering this team is still rebuilding.  Also he'll be next year, I'm not too interested in giving up top prospects for 30-year olds, and who knows how long he'll be able to catch full time.

 

[Mike Sixel]

I understand that, but then you'll just have to rely on the prospects working, because you aren't getting great players any other way.....And you aren't getting any younger great player ever w/o paying at least that much.

 

How much does adding one of the top 20 or so players, to your team speed up the rebuild? 

[gunnarthor]

I think you'd have to give up 2 top 100 guys and 2 more prospects to get him.  And since Stewart is hurt, he's out.  And the Twins will not move Sano or Buxton for anyone.  Meyer's trade value is probably gone.  So it would have to be a package around Berrios and Gordon, plus two more guys. Burdi and Polanco?  

 

I wouldn't take that if I was Milwaukee.

 

In any event, Lucroy is 29 and on the DL.  He could fall of a cliff quick.  And he'd be going from NL to AL.

[Linus]

I wouldn't do it but for a different reason.  Call it the Mauer effect but I would never give big money to a catcher again.  With greater awareness of concussions, etc. combined with the injuries, the risk of having a substantial part of your payroll tied up in a position where they are likely going to be hurt a good share of the time or maybe have to be moved off the position just makes it a gamble I wouldn't take.

[Mike Sixel]

Big money? He's signed for less than 5.5 Million a year through 2017.....

 

I do understand the risk aversion about catchers though.

 

Oh well, we'll just keep waiting for prospects to come up, and then not trade any prospects to close holes.*

 

*that's what history says, anyway, maybe this time it will be different.

[Brandon Warne]

Too steep for me and the Brewers wouldn't want a deal with three catchers in it, I'm sure. 

 

Totally justifiable for the Brewers to ask for that, but it just isn't a good match I don't think.

[Loosey]

I personally wouldn't trade Gonsalves or Stewart for anyone that does not have a contract that goes out to at least 2018.  What does it matter if we have Lucroy for this year and next year?  I would rather take my chances with the prospects and build my team around them for the long term.  Too rich for me overall though.

[jimbo92107]

Thing about Johnathan Lucroy is, aside from the rest of the package, he's also one of the best "pitch framers" in the league. He gets more marginal pitches called strikes than anybody on the Twins. Also, he's fantastic at blocking pitches in the dirt, which makes him a hero for Gibson and other sinkerballers. You give every pitcher on the staff a couple extra called strikes per outing, block a couple extra wild pitches, and suddenly it looks like your whole pitching staff has improved.

 

Who would I trade for that? Not as much as Mike, but at least one of those guys. I wouldn't want to lose Hicks or Polanco, and I'd rather keep Gonsalves. The rest are tradeable. I'd add Arcia to that mix, too. He can be somebody else's DH. The Twins have plenty of candidates for that - AB Walker, Dalton Hicks, Trey Vavra...

[drivlikejehu]

 

I think you'd have to give up 2 top 100 guys and 2 more prospects to get him.  And since Stewart is hurt, he's out.  And the Twins will not move Sano or Buxton for anyone.  Meyer's trade value is probably gone.  So it would have to be a package around Berrios and Gordon, plus two more guys. Burdi and Polanco?  

 

I wouldn't take that if I was Milwaukee.

 

In any event, Lucroy is 29 and on the DL.  He could fall of a cliff quick.  And he'd be going from NL to AL.

 

Berrios, Gordon, Polanco, and Burdi would be a massive overpayment for Lucroy. Milwaukee would accept that on the spot.

[RedBull34]

Better yet, let's just sign him in two years when the Twins are hopefully a player away from winning it all.

 

Catching is probably the one area the Twins have no major talent coming up the pipeline, unless you like Pinto's defensive abilities

[biggentleben]

Lucroy would cost a ton, likely a top 25 prospect minimum along with other pieces.  The package mentioned before wouldn't move the needle.

[gunnarthor]

 

Berrios, Gordon, Polanco, and Burdi would be a massive overpayment for Lucroy. Milwaukee would accept that on the spot.

Not really.  Last year the smartest GM in baseball parted ways with the #5 prospect in baseball for 1.5 years of Shark and half a year of Hammel.  Shields was traded for a package that included the #4 prospect in all of baseball and three more guys, including another top 100 guy and a player a year away from being a top 25 prospect.B

 

None of our guys could touch Myers or Russell as prospects.  Berrios is a controversial prospect. Some love him but others think he's a reliever and he doesn't have #1 upside.  Gordon is pretty far away yet.  Burdi is struggling in AA.  Polanco has really played himself up this year but teams could think he's only a second baseman, reducing his value.

 

 

Other teams could beat that offer.

 

[gunnarthor]

 

 

Oh well, we'll just keep waiting for prospects to come up, and then not trade any prospects to close holes.*

 

*that's what history says, anyway, maybe this time it will be different.

 

Kielty, Ramos, Tyler, Landendorf not withstanding.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Other teams could beat that offer.

 

I had forgotten about the 2017 club option... I take it back, those four wouldn't be an overpayment. But if a decent starter prospect was swapped in for Burdi, I don't think it would be a joke or anything.

 

Probably though Milwaukee would want one elite prospect as part of the deal, instead of several solid guys.

 

 

[gunnarthor]

If we really wanted to, I think a deal around Sano, Polanco and Burdi would actually get him.  I don't think other teams could beat that and the Brewers could dream of his RH power like they had with Braun, plus they'd get a future bullpen piece and a starting second baseman.  But I wouldn't do that.  

 

 

[Linus]

 

Big money? He's signed for less than 5.5 Million a year through 2017.....

 

I do understand the risk aversion about catchers though.

 

Oh well, we'll just keep waiting for prospects to come up, and then not trade any prospects to close holes.*

 

*that's what history says, anyway, maybe this time it will be different.

That is cheap - I didn't read the article and assumed he was already signed for big money.  Still, my plan going forward would be to avoid investing money or prospects at all costs for a catcher due to the risk factor.  Hopefully in the future, we can draft well enough to have a pipeline of adequate catchers at our disposal.

 

I am not against trading away prospects but would wait to make sure we are close to contending and for the position prospects to sort out a little bit so we have a good idea of where our surplus lies.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Kielty, Ramos, Tyler, Landendorf not withstanding.

 

All good counter examples to the general rule, agreed. I stand by my assertion that they didn't really close the holes in the first decade of this century......

[Mike Sixel]

 

That is cheap - I didn't read the article and assumed he was already signed for big money.  Still, my plan going forward would be to avoid investing money or prospects at all costs for a catcher due to the risk factor.  Hopefully in the future, we can draft well enough to have a pipeline of adequate catchers at our disposal.

 

I am not against trading away prospects but would wait to make sure we are close to contending and for the position prospects to sort out a little bit so we have a good idea of where our surplus lies.

 

And, when the prospects inevitably start to fail, they've lost all their value.......that's the problem with waiting on them, imo.

[MileHighTwinsFan]

While this may not be it - I do see a deal at this level in our future.  It could be as soon as the trade deadline this year if the Twins are in contention or by the winter meetings if they are not.  

 

Too many prospects and a serious need for a top-level, All-Star caliber talent to put a cherry on top of the rebuild.

 

[markos]

 

If we really wanted to, I think a deal around Sano, Polanco and Burdi would actually get him.  I don't think other teams could beat that and the Brewers could dream of his RH power like they had with Braun, plus they'd get a future bullpen piece and a starting second baseman.  But I wouldn't do that.  

Yeah, I think that package would be in the ballpark. Cameron certainly suggested some high-end names:

 

Blake Swihart is not on the table for Cole Hamels, but you have to believe the Red Sox would part with him (and a lot more) in order to land Lucroy. The Astros and Carlos Correa? The Dodgers and Corey Seager? These guys might be untouchable for expensive aging pitchers, but put a 29 year old star catcher being paid like a middle reliever on the trade block, and I’d imagine those guys suddenly aren’t so off limits anymore. Lucroy is the kind of chip that gets you a premium talent in return, and probably some other stuff too.

 

[gunnarthor]

 

And, when the prospects inevitably start to fail, they've lost all their value.......that's the problem with waiting on them, imo.

Sure, but the cost if you're wrong is huge and the front end deal isn't usually worth it.  Fans wanted the Twins to trade Morneau for Ty Wiggington.  That would have been a huge disaster. And usually the returns on these trades aren't much - look at the Russell trade.  Oakland already regrets that trade.  When prospects are traded, they aren't usually getting an all-star/MVP type back.  Usually, they are traded for solid starters.  It doesn't take many of those trades to burn you.  Milwaukee isn't going to give up an all-star, cheap, MVP candidate for low level or questionable prospects.  They are going to want a Buxton or Sano.

 

Lesser players - Denard Span - can get good prospects in A+ and those are trades the Twins should look to make but not while they are rebuilding.

[Mike Sixel]

I thought they were done with the rebuild phase, and are now just waiting on the prospects to come and make them a playoff team by 2017? At some point, you actually have to play to win. Given their actions in signing SP, they seem to think that is now or next year. How does Lucroy NOT fit in that timeline?

[Mike Sixel]

And, if Polanco (who is, according to everyone here, AT LEAST a starting 2B), a legit top 100 SP prospect, two good catching prospects, and another player (or even 2) that would be in Milwaukee's top 10 is not enough.....then, as usual, teams aren't really thinking clearly imo. That team has MANY holes....trading him for 1 elite prospect and one decent prospect just means that they might have an elite player again in 2-4 years.....that doesn't actually help them fill their holes.

 

And yes, I get these kinds of trades often don't work out. 

 

Trading more MLB players for more prospects? Like Dozier or Plouffe? I don't get why this team would be doing that now......the minor league system is supposedly loaded.....what they need is MLB players.

[ericchri]

I definitely agree with MWW on this one.  At what point do you say "you know, we have tons of prospects who are just prospects, but that guy over there is a proven big-league all-star" and finally decide to add true, mostly-guaranteed, quality, big league talent, over taking flyers on fringy guys and hoping for prospects to work?  We have enough prospects that I'm willing to lose a few for someone who is really good and proven at the major league level.

 

I wouldn't be willing to put Buxton or Sano in that trade as I think those two have the potential to be special (only a handful of guys seem capable to be special versus just really good), but I'd be willing to talk about just about anyone else in our minors, even if means 2 or 3 of our next 10 after Buxton/Sano and a couple more as well.  Is Lucroy the right guy to do that?  I think I'd probably say yes.

[gunnarthor]

 

And, if Polanco (who is, according to everyone here, AT LEAST a starting 2B), a legit top 100 SP prospect, two good catching prospects, and another player (or even 2) that would be in Milwaukee's top 10 is not enough.....then, as usual, teams aren't really thinking clearly imo. That team has MANY holes....trading him for 1 elite prospect and one decent prospect just means that they might have an elite player again in 2-4 years.....that doesn't actually help them fill their holes.

 

And yes, I get these kinds of trades often don't work out. 

 

Trading more MLB players for more prospects? Like Dozier or Plouffe? I don't get why this team would be doing that now......the minor league system is supposedly loaded.....what they need is MLB players.

If Milwaukee took the offer you suggested in the first post, I'd be more than happy to do that trade.  But I don't think they'd do it.  I think the Twins would have to include one of Sano or Buxton.  That doesn't mean I'm right.  The Doug Fister trade, for example, was a pretty good trade of crappy prospects for a darn good pitcher.  And maybe that happens again.  But I doubt Milwaukee's GM could move Lucroy for such a unheralded return.

[TheLeviathan]

When Sano and Buxton are in the every day lineup this sort of scenario seems more plausible to me.  You don't have to wait on every prospect, but lets at least let our cornerstones get up before we plan on turning the corner with a deal like this.

[h2oface]

 

Meyer's trade value is probably gone..............

Now that is depressing. I guess gone means you now couldn't trade a 25 yr old Meyer, one for one, for a fine 28 yr old MLB center fielder in his prime years that leads off and has an OBP always above .350 and hits around .300? A Meyer that is now so close the the show (some would even say ready a year ago... like Middlebrooks), and just coming out of a season with a 3.52 ERA in 130.1 innings with 64 walks and leading the AAA International League in K's with 153...... but you could trade for that kind of value, and just one for one, when Meyer was even more of a risk at just 22 and had never even played in AA ball and had just finished a split level A ball season with an ERA of 2.86 in 129 innings with 45 walks and only (only?) 139 K's? 

 

How could anybody possibly make that trade then? Can all that amazing trade value really be gone? Is a catcher that is just a few years away from having to play first base that much more valuable than one of the top center fielder's in the show in his prime?

 

I miss Wilson Ramos, too.

[gunnarthor]

 

I definitely agree with MWW on this one.  At what point do you say "you know, we have tons of prospects who are just prospects, but that guy over there is a proven big-league all-star" and finally decide to add true, mostly-guaranteed, quality, big league talent, over taking flyers on fringy guys and hoping for prospects to work?  We have enough prospects that I'm willing to lose a few for someone who is really good and proven at the major league level.

 

I wouldn't be willing to put Buxton or Sano in that trade as I think those two have the potential to be special (only a handful of guys seem capable to be special versus just really good), but I'd be willing to talk about just about anyone else in our minors, even if means 2 or 3 of our next 10 after Buxton/Sano and a couple more as well.  Is Lucroy the right guy to do that?  I think I'd probably say yes.

On paper, there's nothing wrong with it but after you look a little more, it gets harder to make that kind of trade.

 

First, we are taking our two best prospects off the table.  

Second, we have big problems with our next three prospects - Meyer has lost his control, Stewart is injured (and some have soured on him), Berrios doesn't have the cieling that those two do.  Only Berrios would be traded at peak value.

Third, Gordon and Burdi are not eligible to be traded right now, even under the new rule change.  They can be traded in June, a year after they signed (although they can be PTBNL now).

Fourth, after that, the team has pretty darn good depth with a good number of sleeper prospects - Gonsalves, Hu, Polanco, Kepler, Harrison etc.  But none of them are going to be the cornerstone of a trade.

 

So, we'd be looking to move back end top 100 guys (depending on the list) or top prospects with question marks and sleepers for other teams ML players.  The number of teams that would make those trades is limited now to rebuilding teams.  The win-now teams won't be trading ML starters.

 

I don't think rebuilding teams would have much interest in Meyer, so let's ignore him.  Rebuilding teams also won't trade cornerstone players - Tulo, Goldy, Lucroy, Hamels - for lesser pieces (ie, non-Buxton/Sano).  So you'd have to aim at solid ML players on rebuilding teams, maybe good players with bad contracts or only a year or two left.  Teams like AZ, Mil, Philly, Texas etc.  

[gunnarthor]

 

Now that is depressing. You mean, you couldn't trade him for a fine MLB center fielder now that he is so close the the show, and just coming out of a season with a 3.52 ERA in 130.1 innings with 64 walks and leading the AAA International League in K's with 153...... but you could when he was just coming out of a split level A ball season with an ERA of 2.86 in 129 innings with 45 walks and only (only?) 139 K's.  How could anybody possibly make that trade then?

I think his control problems this year has hurt his value so that teams aren't going to trade the value he had had coming into the season.  They'd want to wait to see if he can get his control figured out and be a starting pitcher (in which case, he has no trade value b/c the Twins won't trade him) or if has to go to the bullpen, in which case he no longer has top 25 prospect trade value.  That's what I meant when I said his trade value was gone.  Sorry I sorta skipped over all that.