Trading Carlos
That was not a good weekend.
I'm sure I'm not the only Brewers fan to have sat through the last few innings of yesterday's game in Kansas City thinking about trading Carlos Lee. Not even "whether" or "when" but "for what." I suppose the Crew could go on a seven game run this week, with four games at Wrigley and three more against the Twins, but barring that, I'd say it's time to put everyone over the age of thirty on the block.
Obviously, the guy we're going to get the most value for is El Caballo. There are plenty of potential suitors--depending on how you feel about Alfonso Soriano, Carlos is the best hitter who might be on the market this summer. Just about any team could use him: the Yankees, the Tigers, the White Sox (!), the Cardinals, the Astros, and the Angels, just to name a few. Yankee fans are already foaming at the mouth because the Brewers are scouting golden boy Philip Hughes.
But I don't think Carlos is going to be traded to the Yankees. It does make a lot of sense, but I don't think Hughes will be enough--sure, he's got the talent, the high ceiling, all of that, but I don't think Melvin will pull the trigger on a deal where the major piece we get back needs another full year in the minors, as Hughes might.
The deal that makes the most sense, purely on an analysis of each team's needs, is Carlos to the Cardinals for a package headed by Anthony Reyes. If the Cardinals are going to compete in the postseason this year, they need not only stronger outfield corners, but they need more durability, and Carlos certainly gives you that. And there's no doubt that Melvin would jump at the chance to add someone like Reyes to the rotation. The sticking point: they're in the division. I really wouldn't mind seeing Carlos in red a few times, but the Cardinals might have a problem seeing Reyes come back against them a few times each year until 2011.
Here's the deal that I'm suddenly convinced will happen. Carlos Lee will go to the Angels for a package headed by Jeff Mathis. Maybe, because the Angels are down on Dallas MacPherson, we can get him, too. The Angels are just barely on the fringes of the race, but they still consider themselves in it--after all, they chased down the A's last year, and the Rangers will wilt under the 102 degree heat in Arlington.
Mathis had a dreadful April in the big leagues--perhaps he wasn't quite ready--but scout have loved his defense and believed in his bat for years. He was the Angels catcher-of-the-future until, this May, all of the sudden he wasn't, and Mike Napoli started playing well enough to make LA fans forget about Mathis. Well, we need a catcher of the future. Damian's under contract for next year, so Mathis could be a 60-70 game backup next year and take over the job in 2008. We'd have him under our control for just as long as we do the Prince/Rickie/Corey/JJ squadron.
I'm convinced, however, that this deal needs to happen fast. As I said, the Angels are barely in the race. In a month, they might have given up on the season, looking to trade their own vets. But of all the teams with a need for Caballo, they're the main one that has position-player talent to trade. And while I wouldn't mind picking up a top-shelf pitching talent like Reyes, Hughes, or maybe Humberto Sanchez from the Tigers, we suddenly have a system stocked with pitching prospects. We can always use more, but I'd set that priority below the importance of getting at least one catcher who could take over for Damian.
0 recs |
25 comments
Comments
Continuing...
Okay, if they make a deal right now, the Angels are a legitimate trading partner. But I don't think a deal is going to get done right now. And even if it did, I hope it wouldn't centered around Mathis. Mathis is a fine player, but you have to add up a lot of B/B- prospects, which is what Mathis is, to nab a "franchise hitter," which is what the media is calling Carlos Lee.
As for the Cardinals, with their pitching imploding and Reyes shining, I don't see how they can afford to trade him even if TLR dislikes him (which he appears to). Offense is not the issue for the Cardinals right now.
by battlekow on Jun 26, 2006 1:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
this isn't really mathis-for-lee even up, though
Now, I don't think that's the deal that'll get Carlos--he'll be in too much demand. But frankly, if I had to choose between an even-up Mathis deal and an even-up Hughes deal, I'd probably take Mathis, and I'd be happy about it. Now or a month from now.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jun 26, 2006 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even-up
The Angels certainly have a better ability to put together a package deal than the Yankees, who have Philip Hughes, Jose Tabata, and then a bunch of plastic milk rings, but I have to figure that for Doug Melvin, that package begins with Nick Adenhart.
If he can convince the Angels to package Adenhart, Mathis, and whatever else for Lee and Tony Gwynn Jr/Dave Krynzel in the next couple weeks, that would be excellent. But I think it's too early.
by battlekow on Jun 26, 2006 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
cubs
hey Russ, what are the odds of sweeping the Cubs?
dropping 2 of 3 to the royals was a crushing blow i think. Maybe even more crushing than 'The Losing Streak'.
We should be at .500 right now with a soft schedule in front of us putting us in a position to make a run up to the all-star break.
Seriously, look at the schedule, we have two of the weakest teams in baseball for 10 games, and a team on the decline ahead of us in the standings. And then it is the all star break.
We legitimately could win/sweep all four of the next series, and be sitting 2 (8-5) or 3 (9-4) games above .500 (which would be 3 or even 5 games above had we won the KC series).
What if we were 5 games over .500 at the all-star break? It's basically impossible now, but what if?
Well, we'd be in the catbird seat for the WC.
If we are 2 games over .500 at the break we are still legitimately in it.
Would you trade Lee, essentially sacking the season, if we were 2 games out of the WC at the break?
I wouldn't. (Jenkins however... replaced by a gross/hart platoon...)
Let LEE walk in free agency and take the draft pick. At least you give yourself a fighting chance to bring him back this year if you don't trade him.
by jacob on Jun 26, 2006 2:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Jeff
Whether it would be seen as such is a different story, but if they continue to play relatively good ball afterwards, who cares how the trade initially played?
by battlekow on Jun 26, 2006 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
sacking
Or are you saying those chances are toast already?
if it's a choice between "relatively good ball" and "potential playoffs" which i think it still is, i'll take potential playoffs.
by jacob on Jun 26, 2006 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The effect of trading Lee
by battlekow on Jun 26, 2006 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
white flag.
It'd have to be a prospecty, ML-ready arm sinces all the other positions are basically solidified for years to come. I don't think that's as easy to come by as ya'll think. Also, I don't know that such an arm would fit in as easily as ya'll think either.
by jacob on Jun 26, 2006 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
keep lee
by jacob on Jun 26, 2006 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't imagine any realistic circumstance
At this point I don't think Jenkins is any better than Cruz or Hart will be next year...I don't think keeping Geoff has any bearing on Carlos.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jun 26, 2006 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jenkins
So yes, and no. Someone will overpay for Lee, but I'm certain that whether or not Jenkins is around affects our attitude toward and willingness to pay Lee. If they don't shop Jenkins, then Lee is a goner for sure. The Brewers simply could not carry a Sheets/Jenkins/Lee trio of contracts. Certainly not with raises dues to some of our key players next year. Jenkins is not earning is 8 million right now, not as a platoon player. Lee can play everyday, Jenkins can't, that alone is worth the extra few million we'd need to offer Lee.
I don't think we could win Lee in free agency, but we could compete for him if Jenkins weren't around. And losing Jenkins does not hurt this ball club right now.
by jacob on Jun 26, 2006 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may be right
That doesn't change the fact that paying for Carlos means overpaying for Carlos, and that's something we shouldn't do whether we have Geoff Jenkins, Corey Hart, or Brooks Kieschnick manning right field.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jun 27, 2006 12:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
jenkins & lee
I agree with you on overpaying for Lee, but if it were say a 2/25 that wouldn't be such a lead balloon. Overpaying is disastrous when you have to give 4 and 5 year contracts. But they can't even offer that with Jenkins around. I like the idea of career players. And I think Jenkins is an outstanding hitter, always has been, but only against right handed hitting. I'd give him 4 million a year for as long as he wants to be a brewer to platoon in the OF. But those $16 million dollars over the next two years are overpaying for his services.
by jacob on Jun 27, 2006 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kendrick?
The Angels really do need arms, so perhaps a good young arm (not Yovani or Rogers) along with Lee might net one of the Angels better prospects; but more likely the Brewers would end up with a couple of Grade B guys. Melvin, at least from the Sexson trade (if that's indicative), seems to like acquiring many prospects rather than setting his hopes on just one unproven guy. Brandon Wood is striking out a lot in AA, but he still might be a very good thirdbaseman (rather than shortstop). I get the sense the MacPherson is a bit of a head case (who also has serious contact problems). In any case, I doubt the Angels would part with Kendrick, Wood, Jered Weaver, or Nick Adenhart. Everyone else is probably available.
Another possibility is Houston, if Melvin isn't squeamish about dealing within the division. I'm not familiar enough with their system, though. Hunter Pence? Perhaps one of their 6th startes - Fernando Nieve?
by charles on Jun 26, 2006 3:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
LA/Houston
As for the Astros, Jason Hirsh and Troy Patton are guys Melvin might be interested in. I'm also intrigued by the idea of getting Jason Lane, who has power and on-base skills but might need a change of scenery.
by battlekow on Jun 26, 2006 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Angels and Arms
In reply to the rest of this thread, Mathis is a very likely candidate to come to Milwaukee if a trade is reached with LAA. Plus, there's all those rumors about Ervin Santana being on the market. I don't think they could take Santana AND Mathis, but if they did it would be amazing. I would even love a Lee for Santana straight up deal. Those rumors have to be bogus, though. I don't see why the Angels would trade him unless they know some kind of secret about him. Maybe he's a terrorist.
by BroadwayJoe22 on Jun 27, 2006 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I may still be interested
battlekow convinced me earlier today that I need to be a bit greedier in planning these potential trades, but Ervin + Mathis...ooh, that's just too much.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jun 27, 2006 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Santana
I'd like to see what Maddux could do with Santana. As for catching, can the Crew wait for Angel Salome? I think if Maddux is considered a strong point for the organization, they need to get as many projects (with potential) for him as possible. I tend to wonder whether Capuano would be this good without Maddux's tutelage.
by charles on Jun 27, 2006 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salome
by Jeff Sackmann on Jun 27, 2006 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats anyone?
I know sometimes a team will try to negotiate a long-term deal with the player before trading him (kind like what was rumored to have happened with Burnitz and San Diego). If Lee still had 1+ years left on his contract, then I think we can ask for the world. If he's not likely to resign, though, I can't see a team giving us much for him, unless it's a team like the Tigers, one who has a rare but legitimate shot to, you know, win. A team that's on the bubble but not a serious contender (hey, kind of like us) --- I guess if I were a fan of that team, I'd be pissed if we gave up a lot for a guy we keep for three months.
It'd be nice to think that if we traded Jenkins,we still might trade Lee. My guess is, though, if one goes, the other stays.
by roguejim on Jun 27, 2006 8:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What about the Dodgers?
by TrueBlueBrewCrew on Jun 27, 2006 9:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, they are definitely a possibility
by Jeff Sackmann on Jun 27, 2006 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dodgers
by battlekow on Jun 27, 2006 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
something tells me
by Jeff Sackmann on Jun 27, 2006 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 
























