Article: Why Not Wieters?

[Shane Wahl]

 

I think that framework might gain some traction with a three-way trade. I don't think the Brewers have any interest in Plouffe themselves, but if you could get some other team to join the trade, then maybe it would work.

 

Twins get Lucroy

Team X gets Plouffe

Brewers get prospects from Twins and Team X.

 

I still think the Brewers are going to want (and probably get) at least 1 top-50 prospect in return for Lucroy.

Yeah. I am more interested in the "young catcher" route.

 

The Twins are most interested in the AJ route. Throwing money now at a declining catcher on top of these other contracts is not going to happen. It's less likely than a three-team deal for Lucroy.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Arcia could not stick on our team last year.  Most teams have probably concluded, like the Twins that he simply cannot play in the OF.   So I think he holds minimal value, if any to all NL teams.    And his career .614 against lefties makes him at this point a platoon DH.   He would be a throw in project on a deal that I don't think holds a lot of value.

 

That's reasonable, but others are being snotty about it. How does that help? that' what I posted.....stop being snotty.

[tobi0040]

 

 

 

I still think the Brewers are going to want (and probably get) at least 1 top-50 prospect in return for Lucroy.

 

I think that is fair, or two guys in the 50-100 range.  A few years back, some of the expectations on these boards about what we would get back for trading Willingham were a top 50 prospect.  And that is a position with more of a supply, unlike catcher.

Edited November 6, 2015 by tobi0040

[nicksaviking]

 

"Through 2017" is only 2 more seasons.  Perkins is in that group but making peanuts.  Nolasco's $12 mil is relative peanuts too.  Those aren't the kind of commitments that should make you draw a hard line on adding payroll if it can improve your team.

 

I don't care about the money, I care about the roster spots and the inflexibility of not being able to ditch these guys.  If I thought management would eat two years of sizable contracts I wouldn't be concerned.

 

Not that I don't blame the management as I don't think any team eats more than one year of a large long term deal.

 

So what happens if the Twins don't do well in 2016? These guys can't be sold off to restock, does the team just go right back out there again and sign more vets to take up roster spots?

[BK432]

 

Arcia is the new Casilla in trade talks.  He accounts for <10% of the value of virtually any proposed trade so he really isn't even worth mentioning other than as a throw in.

 

Including Stewart in virtually every trade talk is just as funny.  Maybe the opposing GM's haven't noticed that he can't strike out and still have him ranked highly?

 

Quit trying to pawn off mediocre prospects for really good players.  And if the Brewers are rebuilding then they are going to want players with more team control than Plouffe and probably Gibson. 

 

This makes me chuckle. Every single trade we pitch seems to include some variation of Arcia and Stewart, and including guys like Plouffe or Gibson who will demand big money before the trading team has the chance to be back in contention.

 

It's like we think we can assemble together pieces that might sound good but be of minimal pain to us and that the other team will just say "oh, sure, okay, a failed MLB outfielder who can't hit lefties and a former top 100 prospect at class A who strikes out less than 5 per 9? ABSOLUTELY!"

 

Not hating on anyone, heck I do it too, it's just funny to me. And I sure am hopeful that the Ks will come for Stewart and Arcia is young enough to redeem himself (at least at the plate), but they seem a bit like reduced value trade chips right now. I wouldn't be thrilled to buy them as an opposing GM.

 

In any event, unless I'm really sure Wieters is very healthy and will be worth his contract for at least the first 3 years, I'm probably looking elsewhere. I don't have the stomach to trade what would be needed for Lucroy (but I'm definitely talking to the Brewers to know for sure).

 

I actually like the Alex Avila thought from Doc. Good platoon option, plug it in for a year, and re-evaluate next offseason.

[darin617]

I would have to say no on signing Wieters. He would only sign a 1 year deal in Minnesota and you would still lose the first round pick for signing him. Also, they still have Suzuki eating up $6M to deal with. Give me AJ for $3-4M and I can deal with that for a year.

[tobi0040]

 

I would have to say no on signing Wieters. He would only sign a 1 year deal in Minnesota and you would still lose the first round pick for signing him. Also, they still have Suzuki eating up $6M to deal with. Give me AJ for $3-4M and I can deal with that for a year.

 

I am not as concerned about 3-4 years for Weiters.  We have Suzuki another year and he is not good.  But when you look out 2-4 years, we got nothing.  So even a declining/aging Weiters is likely gonig to be an upgrade.   AJ does not address the lack of talent the organization has there

[kab21]

 

Kohl Stewart is still a top 10 prospect in the Twins' org. There are many who say (online experty types) that the strikeouts will come. Suggesting he be packaged, along with a 23 YO that OPS over 110 in the majors, and another prospect, for a 29/30 YO catcher is not far fetched.

 

It might not be enough, but it's nothing to be snotty about.

He is a prospect whose luster has worn off and your proposal is basically hoping that other GM's haven't noticed.  He isn't going to rank in any top 200 lists and no deal for a player at Lucroy's level is going to be headlined by Stewart. 

 

These proposals amount to trying to glue together a bunch of things that you don't really want and trying to convince other teams that they have a lot of value.  They don't.  Other teams are going to be more interested in Kepler, gonsalves or Palacios or risers in the system than someone whose value is plummeting. 

 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

 

 

Actually, nearly every FA offered a QO gets signed......so it isn't true that teams don't give up draft picks for these guys. I can recall 2-3 in the last 5-10 years that weren't. That's it.

 

Actually, nearly every FA offered a QO gets signed......so it isn't true that teams don't give up draft picks for these guys. I can recall 2-3 in the last 5-10 years that weren't. That's it.

Of course someone gives up pick for the vast majority of FAs who get a QO.  I thought that went without saying. I should have said don't like to give up and I bet the majority of the picks given up are later than 17.

 

 

[USAFChief]

According to MLBtraderumors, Wieters did indeed get a QO, so will require draft pick compensation from the team that signs him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

A package involving Plouffe for Lucroy, or a package involving Polanco for Plawecki seems preferable than a 4 year deal at $15 million per for a guy with reduced arm strength, poor pitch framing, health concerns, and position concerns?

Except for one thing:

 

Why would the Brewers want Plouffe? They're on the cusp of a rebuild, especially if they trade Lucroy. The idea is nonsensical.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Arcia is the new Casilla in trade talks. He accounts for

 

Including Stewart in virtually every trade talk is just as funny. Maybe the opposing GM's haven't noticed that he can't strike out and still have him ranked highly?

 

Quit trying to pawn off mediocre prospects for really good players. And if the Brewers are rebuilding then they are going to want players with more team control than Plouffe and probably Gibson.

 

If I'm Milwaukee, I start the conversation at Berrios and don't dip below Kepler + Gonsalves.

 

That's a realistic trade scenario, not the gibberish being spouted in this thread.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I would have to say no on signing Wieters. He would only sign a 1 year deal in Minnesota and you would still lose the first round pick for signing him. Also, they still have Suzuki eating up $6M to deal with. Give me AJ for $3-4M and I can deal with that for a year.

If Wieters was willing to sign for 1 year, even at the QO price, you'd have to do it. Not only would that eliminate much of the risk, but you would stand a decent chance of getting a comp pick back if he was decent enough to earn another QO from us next winter.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Of course someone gives up pick for the vast majority of FAs who get a QO. I thought that went without saying. I should have said don't like to give up and I bet the majority of the picks given up are later than 17.

Actually, last winter 3 of the 5 first round picks surrendered were 17 or better.

 

Also, since the first 10 picks are protected, it's pretty meaningless to say the forfeited pick is more likely to come from a group of 13 (picks 18-30) rather than a group of 7 (picks 11-17).

[Otto von Ballpark]

Except for one thing:

 

Why would the Brewers want Plouffe? They're on the cusp of a rebuild, especially if they trade Lucroy. The idea is nonsensical.

To be fair, he has also floated the idea of a 3-way trade. Still not sure I buy it, as an available Lucroy is going to generate more demand and better return than an available Plouffe. So the 3-way trade idea still suggests that we can get Lucroy without giving up any player/prospect that is going to "hurt".

 

Acquiring anything better than a stopgap catcher is going to hurt. If you think the trade and major FA signing hurt is equal, that's fine, but yeah, it does seem silly to keep dismissing the major FA signing on the notion that a better option is plainly available less painfully in trade.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Put another way: despite missing most of the past 2 seasons, Wieters got a QO and is widely believed to net around 4/60 this winter. What does that mean? The demand for good catchers, with the potential to be among the best in the league, is huge.

 

That demand isn't just limited to FA catchers though. The same teams that are likely to drive up the FA price of Wieters will also drive up the trade price of Lucroy.

 

And on the other side of the ledger, if Plouffe were a free agent today, would he get a QO? Would there be a consensus about him getting 4/60 on the open market even with a QO attached? How about if you attached Arcia and Stewart to him too? He's not valueless, but his value just isn't in the same ballpark as catchers Lucroy or Wieters even with their question marks.

[USAFChief]

Acquiring anything better than a stopgap catcher is going to hurt. If you think the trade and major FA signing hurt is equal, that's fine, but yeah, it does seem silly to keep dismissing the major FA signing on the notion that a better option is plainly available less painfully in trade.

As stated early in this thread, Wieters appears to be the best of a rather poor set of choices.

 

They can kick the can down the road with someone like AJ, but that's no guarantee to help win in 2016, and also means they're looking for catching next winter, when the options might be even worse.

[jorgenswest]

Lots of pages are wasted on packages that can never happen. Every team feels the 40 man roster crunch. They can't take on more guys on the 40 than they move. They will just lose other players when DFA'd to get down to 40.

 

Berrios isn't on the 40 and has significant value. The Twins need a starter that is better than league average. Berrios has the best chance in the organization to meet that need. I think the need for a top starter is greater than the need for a catcher. Other prospects not on the 40 have little or no time above A ball and do not add enough to a package.

 

Dozier is the Twins best asset towards acquiring a catcher. Dozier for a solid catcher or Weiters for their round 1 pick. I think I would roll the dice with Weiters and give up the pick.

[DocBauer]

Question/statement...if I may.

 

I have also tossed Stewart's name out on an occasion or two, as of late, as part of various trade bundles and options. To be perfectly honest, I'd rather trade him than Gonsalves. Perhaps I am misguided in this thought, but it is how I feel.

 

However, pretty much every single prospect list related to the Twins has Stewart in the top 15 at worst, if not top 10. And I believe I have yet to see him listed behind Gonsalves on any list. Therefore, while we may complain and wonder on these boards about his SO's and potential, and whether or not he will ever turn a corner, just how good he can be...RIGHT NOW...everyone who ranks prospects seems to still see him as a quality prospect.

[mnfireman]

The same people on here saying sign Wieters are the ones saying how bad Mauer's contract is, even when he was still catching. This is the SAME thing. 

 

And those wanting to trade the young pitching to get catching are the ones trying to figure out how to trade for young pitching. SMH!

 

Yes it felt good to watch the team compete, but it was a year or two early. Let's see what the prospects can do, including bringing returns in trades, but let's not get all googly eyed over a player who's best full season OPS was only 10% above league average and was 5 years ago.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The same people on here saying sign Wieters are the ones saying how bad Mauer's contract is, even when he was still catching. This is the SAME thing

Cite? Otherwise stick to the topic at hand, and please don't assign other opinions to those you disagree with.

[Major League Ready]

Actually, last winter 3 of the 5 first round picks surrendered were 17 or better.

 

Also, since the first 10 picks are protected, it's pretty meaningless to say the forfeited pick is more likely to come from a group of 13 (picks 18-30) rather than a group of 7 (picks 11-17).

You know better than to use that small of a sample size. Look at the last 5 years and you know it is no even remotely close to last year.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You know better than to use that small of a sample size. Look at the last 5 years and you know it is no even remotely close to last year.

Well, one year is larger than the sample you cited. You said "I bet the majority of the picks given up are later than 17". If data exists to support your point, find it and present it, don't just "bet" on its existence and admonish someone who actually looked at some data. (And 5 years would actually predate the QO system, so I am not sure if it would all be relevant to the present year.)

 

And when you find it, be sure to correct for the different group sizes as I mention. Picks later than 17 could be sacrificed almost twice as often and still not be "more likely" to be sacrificed just by simple math.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Let's see what the prospects can do, including bringing returns in trades

I will double down on this part of your comment. I would like to see Pinto get an honest shot. In 2014 he was Deduno's personal caddy, and 2015 started off with a concussion and went down hill from there. "His bat was never in question," we were told, and Suzuki and Pierzynski are already about the worst defensive catchers as measured by Fangraphs, so what do we have to lose?

 

Free Pinto!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You know better than to use that small of a sample size.  Look at the last 5 years and you know it is no even remotely close to last year.

 

Since I was feeling generous, I decided to do your research.  There have been 3 drafts since the new qualifying offer compensation system went into effect.  (Drafts prior to that will be skewed because it was much easier to get compensation picks.)  Here are the forfeited first round picks in each of the last 3 drafts:

 

2015: 13, 15, 17, 19, and 27

2014: 17, 18, 21, and 26

2013: 17, 22, 28, and 29

 

Notice anything interesting?  The 17th pick has been forfeited 3 straight years!  Still a small sample, but teams do not seem particularly protective of that pick so far in the qualifying offer era.  (Also, in theory the forfeited 19th pick in 2015 and 18th pick in 2014 could have moved up to 17th or better given the forfeited picks ahead of them, although I didn't check the order of signings to know who forfeited first.)

 

If you want to divide them into two groups as you suggest ("I bet the majority of the picks given up are later than 17"), 24% of unprotected picks 17th or earlier have been forfeited, versus 21% of first round picks 18th or later.