On the possibility of moving Trevor Hoffman
by KLSnow on Aug 27, 2009 4:06 PM CDT
in Statistical Analysis
57 comments
As Adam McCalvy noted during the game, Trevor Hoffman was claimed off of trade waivers by an unknown team, and could be dealt if said team can work out a deal with Doug Melvin and the Brewers. Here are three things to keep in mind while rumors will fly over the next few days:
A deal is unlikely to happen. For a deal to happen, the Brewers and the team that claimed Hoffman would have to go from nowhere to a done deal in under 48 hours. Working out a deal that works for both sides that quickly isn't easy, especially when one GM (Doug Melvin in this case) doesn't particularly need to unload the player changing hands. There won't be much negative reaction if nothing comes of this, so whoever claimed Hoffman will almost certainly have to overpay for him to complete a deal.
Any team acquiring Hoffman is getting more than a five week rental. Hoffman will be a Type A free agent this offseason. Any team acquiring him will get:
- Hoffman for the remainder of 2009, obviously.
- The opportunity to offer him arbitration for the 2010 season.
- Two picks in the top 60 or so of next year's draft if he declines arbitration and signs elsewhere.
So, any acquiring team would likely be operating based on the possibility that they're either acquiring Hoffman for the rest of this year and 2010, or acquiring Hoffman and two prospects. But, with that said...
Holding onto Hoffman because you want the compensation picks is not a surefire bet. Hoffman has said publicly he'd like to play one more season, but I'm not sure what the market will be for his services this offseason, for two reasons:
- Any team that signs Hoffman will have to give their first or second round draft pick to his former team, meaning Hoffman's new team would be spending significant money (probably $6-8 million) and also losing an early draft pick.
- Hoffman will turn 42 in October.
Obviously, Hoffman has performed very well, better than many of us expected at 41 years old, but any team that signs him will be giving up significant money and a prospect based on the theory that he'll still be just as good at 42. It's a risky bet. If no one is willing to take that bet and offer the money he feels he deserves, Hoffman may decide to retire, and his former team won't get anything in return.
So, speculate away.
0 recs |
57 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Phillies, Braves, Rays, Marlins
Any one of those teams might take a flyer on him at this point. I calculated the other day using Kalkman’s trade value calculator, that if the Brewers pick up the remaining part of his salary, and he is overpaid for by about .3 WAR for the rest of the year, he is worth about $8 million. This would translate to an ok prospect, probably someone in A ball right now.
If the Marlins or Braves wanted to try and make a push, they have some players that might make Melvin pull the trigger. Heck any of the teams listed above has a guy in A ball right now who has some questions but a lot of upside they might be willing to unload for a month of Hoffman’s services. Guys who fit the bill (pitchers) would be Eduardo Morlan (Rays), Randall Delgado (Braves), Eulogio De La Cruz (Marlins),…
I think Melvin is on record as not being too thrilled about just getting cash for Hoffman, or any of the guys recently placed on waivers. But would $8 million be a nice piece of money to go towards a short term signing for next year, or to put into the draft pool for signings.
by backtocali on Aug 27, 2009 4:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I could be wrong.
Hey, it’s not like I hold myself out there as an expert, or scout, or anything, but with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions I doubt that Melvin will give up Hoffman for any one player in A ball right now. Not when he can hold onto him, offer him arbitration and either have a reliable arm for next year’s pen or two early picks in compensation if Hoffman turns arby down.
But like I said, I’m no expert.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 27, 2009 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this isn't a problem
The problem I see with using WAR to evaluate a trade at this point is that 2009 wins don’t hold much value to the Brewers right now. I understand that Wins certainly matter to the trade partner, but I’m feel like the value of wins would be so skewed between the two teams that it’s not really fair to evaluate a trade that way.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 27, 2009 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
in fact
wins are a negative thing to us right now, as if we move up into the top half of the standings in the league, we have higher penalty for signing an A/B.
So WAR is really aweful to evaluate with respect to the brewers in 2009.
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 27, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You also need to leverage the wins
and you can’t just ignore the value of two comp picks. I almost guarantee they don’t trade Hoffman (though they should try to trade everyone else they just put on waivers) because of the difficulty in gauging the pick value, and then it closes the possibility of him coming back next year (the Brewers would have to give up picks then), and if they keep him they can either re-sign him for cheaper or get the two picks.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
by Jordan M on Aug 27, 2009 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't discount the possibility that Hoffman accepts arb
What could he lose? He apparently wants to pitch just one more season. From $6MM he’ll probably get a raise to around $10MM with the year he is having. Not bad for 42. In that case, they ‘lose picks’ as well, and if he retires after 2010, they get zero in return.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 28, 2009 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
If the Brewers work out some sort of deal with him and he retires in 2010, they get nothing as well. I’d just assume the Brewers would offer less than, say, $10MM, and I’d guess that’s around what Hoffman would get in an arb case. Maybe not, though.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 28, 2009 7:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would Hoffman accept arb if he could credibly demand a $10m salary?
It’s not like there’ll be teams that would look at him as a FA and say, “oh, only a one-year contract? Sorry, but we can’t do that” and he’d have to go the arbitration route to get that contract. In any case, he’d still be quite tradeable even if he was to get a bumped-up salary through arbitration.
by Zeyes on Aug 28, 2009 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he wants $ and said he wants to come back to Milwaukee?
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 28, 2009 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In addendum...
I don’t know that he could ‘credibly demand a $10MM salary’. But, the arbitration process many times will award very large sums based on this season’s performance.
If I was a team in MLB and Trevor Hoffman hit the market, I’d be looking at him. I’d see his age first, and his numbers second. I’d see that he started 2009 on the DL. And I wouldn’t want to go over $6MM to sign him. So, I guess what I was driving at is that he could not command the kind of money on the open market that I feel he will get through arb.
And, I think you’re looking at things the wrong way if you’re wanting to sign Hoffman for $10MM in 2010 so that the team can trade him. In my opinion, of course.
Does that make more sense?
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 28, 2009 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eulogio De La Cruz hasn't been a Marlin since March...
And he hasn’t been in A ball since 2005…and has (briefly & disastrously) appeared in the majors each of the last three years.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Aug 27, 2009 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
And I think we're familiar with Eduardo Morlan too.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by KLSnow on Aug 27, 2009 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Morlan is still a viable prospect, and if they were to acquire him in a trade for Hoffman, there wouldnt be all of the restrictions attached that were in place when they claimed him in the Rule 5 draft.
On the de la Cruz thing..was using Sickels grades from last Spring, didnt realize he was traded, but again, if he had been a Marlin still, a viable prospect.
Truth of the matter is that the Brewers probably cant expect to get anything of substantial value for Hoffman right now, above an A ball player with big upside, questions and all. Why would a team give up a young bullpen arm, that they can control for 3 or 4 years as well as add value to their team, for a guy who will only add a win at most in the last month of the season.
Again though, have to wonder if a cash deal is not in the best interest of the team simply for going into next years salaries or draft.
by backtocali on Aug 28, 2009 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All of which doesn't explain thinking De La Cruz and Morlan are pitching in A ball (they are not)
Took me about 30 seconds to find the above about De La Cruz.
I think a guy who hasn’t exactly figured out AAA at 25 and who is out of options is really stretching the idea of a prospect with upside. They could sign Luis Pena for free.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Aug 28, 2009 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So his potential is THAT MUCH HIGHER than where he's at now
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 27, 2009 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Highly doubt it is the braves
We already have two closers (Gonzalez and Soriano) who are both hitting FA this offseason and will both be type A. Adding Hoffman doesn’t help our bullpen in any way and we don’t need the possible draft picks next year.
Blocking the Phillies or Marlins would be the only reason as mentioned below…
by fphjr01 on Aug 28, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
After getting swept by the Reds
isn’t there some Brett Favre news? This Brewers team is absolutely depressing.
by Marty McSuperFly on Aug 27, 2009 4:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
why do you think i immediately jumped to trade speculation after the game?
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by KLSnow on Aug 27, 2009 4:48 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Crappy baseball is still way better than the best football.
by Mykenk on Aug 27, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 7 recs
I must be the rare person here who doesn't agree
…he says while wearing his “We’ll Never Forget You, Brent” shirt. :)
by Cheeseandcorn on Aug 27, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
who is brent
seriously. i don’t know of a brent that played for the packers
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 27, 2009 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure you do...
Brent Fullwood (FB – 1987-1990)
Brent Moore (DE – 1987)
Of course, both were pretty forgettable.
by sjlee on Aug 27, 2009 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i guess fullwood is somewhat familiar
moore? no…only spoorts moore I know is charlie.
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 28, 2009 6:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's also the possibility that the team that claimed him has no desire to deal for him at all...
… and just put in the claim to prevent the Phillies (or someone else) from making a deal.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 27, 2009 5:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My guess is that this is what happened.
What team not in the playoff hunt would need a closer? Maybe the Phillies. and the Cubs, but they’re not really in it, and, well, THAT wouldn’t happen anyway.
Does Hoffman have a no-trade clause that he’d have to waive?
by Mykenk on Aug 27, 2009 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope.
He hasn’t had a contract with a no-trade clause since 2004.
by sjlee on Aug 27, 2009 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't need one written into his contract after 2004
He was a 10-and-5 guy (automatic NTC) in San Diego at that point.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Aug 27, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a full NTC
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Aug 27, 2009 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The idea is to protect veteran players who spend a lengthy amount of time in one city and presumably set roots down there from being shipped out involuntarily because it suits the team.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Aug 27, 2009 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that doesn't carry over with a new team?
by Mykenk on Aug 27, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was just clarifying why he didn't have a no-trade clause in his contracts with the Padres.
Rather than saying my post was incorrect.
by sjlee on Aug 27, 2009 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
right, i got that, wasn't sure if he still had one, given that he hasn't spent 5 years with his current team. I knew the rule at one point.
by Mykenk on Aug 27, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's 10 years in the majors, the last 5 with his current team
So once he played for the Brewers he lost the NTC.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Aug 27, 2009 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
does it have to be the ‘last’ 5?? or at least 5 yrs with any one team?
by Saberilliterate on Aug 28, 2009 7:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the CBA: Article XIX, Section A(1)
(1) The contract of a Player with ten or more years of Major League service, the last five of which have been with one Club, shall not be assignable to another Major League Club without the Player’s written consent. No consent from a Player shall be considered effective until twenty-four hours from the Club’s request to the Player for such consent. At his sole election, however, a Player may, at the time he signs a multi-year contract with a Club, waive the right to prevent an assignment of his contract under this Section A(1), provided that the multi-year contract (a) is signed before the Player has attained ten or more years of Major League service, the last five of which have been with one Club, and (b) contains a notrade provision that, at a minimum, limits the Club’s right to assign the Player’s contract, during each of its years, to no more than sixteen (16) Clubs designated or subsequently to be designated by the Player.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Aug 28, 2009 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Dana Eveland still available?
He’d be a sweet return.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 27, 2009 10:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yovani Gallardo
was a 2nd round pick, Rodgers was our 1st pick that year yes? So despite the incredibly unlikely situation where we get another Yo Go. I would not want to trade Trevor unless we get way better than 2 top 60 prospects. A Type A FA really gets you a ton in the draft, at least a ton of potential.
Personally I think next year we will probably be 81-81 or 85-77.
2011 is our year. Hall’s contract expires +7 Million, Suppan’s Contract expires +12 Million, Riskey is gone +4 Million. Thats 23 Million free’d up going into the 2011 season. Sure Prince will probably make 15 million in Arb but thats only 5 million more than next year so that still is 21 million for us in Free Agency. And perhaps Hardy’s contract will just slide over to Prince once prince is gone.
Also
Esky has more MLB time, Gaml is presumably an every day starter,
2010 will be a year we put pieces into place. 2011 will be the year we put the final piece in the puzzle and make our run for a title.
by Flanyboy on Aug 28, 2009 12:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm failing to see your point about Trevor
Trevor does no good WITHOUT someone like Gallardo to get them to the lead until the 9th – that depends on making solid picks.
The year that Gallardo got picked is an exception with regard to our picks for pitching. Usually we get no one of true value. So, getting a pick in compensation for a type A is unlikely to fix our pitching problems.
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 28, 2009 6:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Who cares who sits at the back end of your bullpen if your SP and the rest of your BP staff can only get them 30 opps/yr?
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 28, 2009 7:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And who cares how good your starting staff is if the bullpen blows it every game?
Catch 22
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 28, 2009 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
bullpen wouldn't blow it as often if they pitched fewer innings, due to deeper penetration by the starting staff
she said catch 22 solved
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 28, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
well done.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 28, 2009 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2011
Actually, Suppan, Riske and Hall will STILL be getting money from us… but only $2.75 M that year as they each have options.
I think you’re being overly optimistic about 2011 from the standpoint of having a ton of “extra” cash lying around. Hart, Weeks, Coffey, Villanueva, Parra, Rivera and Gallardo will also be arbitration eligible. I know not all of them will likely be around by then, but at the very least Gallardo will get a decent bump if he continues to pitch as he has (or better). Then there’s the matter of getting some decent pitchers into the rotation and bullpen.
In fact, the more I think about it, the 2011 team could be in worse shape than the team at the start of this season.
by sjlee on Aug 28, 2009 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing Gallardo will be locked up long term by then
The contract will probably be less than he would get in arbitration, but it will certainly be higher than it is now.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 29, 2009 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tom H. reports SF put the claim on Hoffman
That looks like a blocker claim to me. They have a closer with whom they are confident.
Without knowing who they have in their system, I would have started paying attention if the Phillies (and to a lesser extent, Colorado) had been awarded the claim on Hoffman.
by jimf on Aug 28, 2009 1:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Brew Crew Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
St. Louis
|
91 | 71 | .561 | 0 | Lost 6 |
|
Chicago
|
83 | 78 | .515 | 7.5 | Lost 1 |
|
Milwaukee
|
80 | 82 | .493 | 11 | Won 3 |
|
Cincinnati
|
78 | 84 | .481 | 13 | Won 2 |
|
Houston
|
74 | 88 | .456 | 17 | Lost 3 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
62 | 99 | .385 | 28.5 | Lost 2 |
(updated 2.10.2010 at 4:46 AM CST)
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
