Shaun Marcum Traded to the Brewers for Brett Lawrie

rdtx2005 · Post #141 » by **rdtx2005** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:11 am

Bill James handbook as Greinke 14-11 in 2011.. and Marcum at 12-11 in 2011. ERA roughly the same

Michael Bradley · Post #142 » by **Michael Bradley** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:11 am

I think the Greinke stuff is mentioned just because the Jays were connected to him in rumors recently. If the Jays are trading Marcum for 20-year old prospect(s), then they might as well trade Bautista too. Doesn't make sense to create this much of a downgrade to the rotation, trade for players years away from contributing, and expect to remain competitive in the AL East in 2011. Drabek and Rzep are not going to pitch like 2008/2010 Marcum, at least not not yet (if they ever do at all). AA seems to be conceding 2011, unless he has something else up his sleeve.

Raider917 · Post #143 » by **Raider917** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:12 am

-MetA4- wrote:
Randle McMurphy wrote:Greinke isn't as much of an upgrade on Marcum as you think, IMO.

Greinke's 2008 season was 1.4 WAR higher than Marcum this year. His "down year" this year was 1.7 WAR higher.

Greinke is outright an upgrade over Marcum.

shouldnt he have completed the Greinke part of this before dealing Marcum if Greinke is going to be a Blue Jay?

Waylon Mercy · Post #144 » by **Waylon Mercy** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:12 am

So what exactly is the Plan here?

People throw out names like Grienke and Manny Ramierez which would indicate they want
to win now.

Then you dump one of your best pitchers and leaders for a prospect...

Last time I checked the Blue Jays have one of the deepest farm systems in Baseball especially
on the pitching side.

All the talk about the potential Upton trade was cashing in that young talent for a stud who is
also 23.

I don't think the Blue Jays have any interest in seriously going after Grienke or Manny at all...

I also have a feeling AA is reluctant to make a big deal I think he has a bit of stage fright still.
Sure he made the Halladay trade but not sure if he has the stones to go after a star instead
of giving up one....I hope im wrong.

If the plan is to stock pile as much high end prospects as he can and build through the draft I
have no problem with that.

But throwing out names like Grienke and Manny just contradicts everything and creates
confusion.

dagger · Post #145 » by **dagger** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:12 am

Schadenfreude wrote:
dagger wrote:Well, if we're going to base a players value on past TJ surgery we better get rid of Drabek ASAP.

The Phillies organization overhauled his delivery post-TJ because they felt there was a significant risk that he'd ruin his arm if they didn't. Now, by all indications his delivery is fine. Marcum's is still pretty scary...he has a very pronounced 'inverted W' brought on by the way he scap-loads.

So you're an orthopaedic surgeon now? Injury risk is injury risk. We traded for him, so I think the risk must have been acceptable but I don't buy that Marcum was a big injury risk himself.

There is a time to draw a line in the sand and say we're not going backward. That doesn't mean the Jays have to make a batch of contend-now moves, but I want to see that line drawn at being at a minimum, a .500 team for 2011. Right now, AA is kicking sand over the line that is there so he can make a new line in 2012 or 2013, which means another 4-5 years of building. I'm not setting foot in the Stadium again until I see that line in the sand drawn firmly. It's no use investing emotionally in a 2011 season where the objectives are so obscure, even meaningless. I hope the next week or two bring some moves that suggest that there is a commitment to .500 ball in 2011.

Raps in 4 · Post #146 » by **Raps in 4** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:13 am

This trade doesn't make since if Lawrie isn't getting flipped in a deal for Greinke. You don't trade upper-tier pitching for shaky prospects.

Relentless88 · Post #147 » by **Relentless88** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:14 am

Wow just saw this. Like someone said I'm glad AA isn't too attached to players like BC seems to be. I'm going to miss Marcum, but getting their best prospect for him seems like a good deal and going with the plan. Maybe they flip Lawrie and more for Greinke?

dagger · Post #148 » by **dagger** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:14 am

Hoopstarr wrote:Keith Law's blurb on Lawrie from his top 100 list in January
"There's still a realistic chance he'll have to move to first or an outfield corner, limiting his projected value. "

You mean we traded for a low-minors version of Brett Wallace?

LBJSeizedMyID · Post #149 » by **LBJSeizedMyID** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:15 am

I love how after one year, the year we were expected to be one of the lowest teams in MLB, we all of a sudden are questioning AA's motives for selling one of our pitchers who's coming off a succesful season one year removed from TJ surgery. We got a top 50 prospect for a #2 starter. It's a good deal. Get over it.

Michael Bradley · Post #150 » by **Michael Bradley** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:15 am

And I get a Brett Wallace vibe from Lawrie. Not comparing them as players, but just that Lawrie might have to move to a much more offensively demanding position (LF? 1B?), and what is considered OK from him now (as a 2B or 3B) will not be enough if he ever has to move.

I guess I was expecting a lot more in a Marcum trade then what it seems like the Jays will be getting.

-MetA4- · Post #151 » by **-MetA4-** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:16 am

dagger wrote:I beginning to wonder if this is Rogers being cheaper than I thought

Yeah; so they're fine with offering $20 million to Chapman and $10+ million to Hechavarria (two kids who could have never seen a single major league game), spending $10+ million on the draft (more kids who may never play a single game) yet they are cheaping out on an established major league player that is already bringing wins and selling tickets? Thats not even remotely believable.

By advanced metrics Marcum was our 3rd best starter last year. Granted that he was shopped last trade deadline, and moved now, it is obvious that the people in charge of our organization laugh at the notion of him being our "ace". He was by far the most perishable of our current starters and they chose to sell high on him.

Raider917 · Post #152 » by **Raider917** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:16 am

LBJSeizedMyID wrote:I love how after one year, the year we were expected to be one of the lowest teams in MLB, we all of a sudden are questioning AA's motives for selling one of our pitchers who's coming off a succesful season one year removed from TJ surgery. We got a top 50 prospect for a #2 starter. It's a good deal. Get over it.

id rather have a #2 starter than a top 50 prospect

LBJSeizedMyID · Post #153 » by **LBJSeizedMyID** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:17 am

Michael Bradley wrote:And I get a Brett Wallace vibe from Lawrie. Not comparing them as players, but just that Lawrie might have to move to a much more offensively demanding position (LF? 1B?), and what is considered OK from him now (as a 2B or 3B) will not be enough if he ever has to move.

I guess I was expecting a lot more in a Marcum trade then what it seems like the Jays will be getting.

Or a potential 20/30 guy. But you know just saying.

Hoopstarr · Post #154 » by **Hoopstarr** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:18 am

Lawrie led the Southern league in errors at 2B. There was already talk among the Brewers about moving him to the OF so that's not a good sign, unless Alex and Co think they can fix him. He'd have a lot less value as a corner OF.

Kurtz · Post #155 » by **Kurtz** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:18 am

Relentless88 wrote:Wow just saw this. Like someone said I'm glad AA isn't too attached to players like BC seems to be. I'm going to miss Marcum, but getting their best prospect for him seems like a good deal and going with the plan. Maybe they flip Lawrie and more for Greinke?

Are we talking about Colangelo? The same Colangelo who has traded or tried to trade pretty much every single player on the roster outside the three guys he drafted in the first round?

The Flying Gent · Post #156 » by **The Flying Gent** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:19 am

youreachiteach wrote:
Even leaving Greinke aside for a moment, this not a particularly shrewd move. Pitching talent, especially fairly cost effective pitching talent that would in all likelihood re-sign if we asked, is generally better regarded than talented prospects w/ no position. We're not talking about about Jesus Montero here.

The chance for this deal to blow up in our face is fairly high. I do n't think it's nearly the good risk you are assuming it to be. And by the way, 29 is NOT old for a finesse pitcher.

Marcum is old relative to the core of this team. He's already had one major surgery, and as Schad has so helpfully pointed out, he continues to be an injury risk. He comes from a position of depth on this team; we have something of an embarrassment of riches in the pitching department. He is one of the better pitchers around, but his production is not irreplaceable, especially by a team with the kind pitching depth we have.

Take all that and turn it into a consensus top 50 prospect and i have no problem calling it a shrewd move.

LBJSeizedMyID · Post #157 » by **LBJSeizedMyID** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:19 am

Raider917 wrote:
LBJSeizedMyID wrote:I love how after one year, the year we were expected to be one of the lowest teams in MLB, we all of a sudden are questioning AA's motives for selling one of our pitchers who's coming off a succesful season one year removed from TJ surgery. We got a top 50 prospect for a #2 starter. It's a good deal. Get over it.

id rather have a #2 starter than a top 50 prospect

Who could be up with the club as early as this year. You guys are treating this as though Lawrie is 4-5 years away still.

Post #158 » by **Schad** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:21 am

dagger wrote:So you're an orthopaedic surgeon now? Injury risk is injury risk. We traded for him, so I think the risk must have been acceptable but I don't buy that Marcum was a big injury risk himself.

No, but you don't need to be an orthopedic surgeon to know that some delivery styles are far more risky than others. Here's an article about the Jays' injury troubles from last year talking about the inverted W. It's also something that you can see in live action with Marcum...the timing on his release often seems odd, which leads to a very physical (and often somewhat disjointed) release.

There is a time to draw a line in the sand and say we're not going backward. That doesn't mean the Jays have to make a batch of contend-now moves, but I want to see that line drawn at being at a minimum, a .500 team for 2011. Right now, AA is kicking sand over the line that is there so he can make a new line in 2012 or 2013, which means another 4-5 years of building. I'm not setting foot in the Stadium again until I see that line in the sand drawn firmly. It's no use investing emotionally in a 2011 season where the objectives are so obscure, even meaningless. I hope the next week or two bring some moves that suggest that there is a commitment to .500 ball in 2011.

Isn't playing .500 ball and finishing ten games out of a playoff berth pretty meaningless as well?

flatjacket1 · Post #159 » by **flatjacket1** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:21 am

Raider917 wrote:
LBJSeizedMyID wrote:I love how after one year, the year we were expected to be one of the lowest teams in MLB, we all of a sudden are questioning AA's motives for selling one of our pitchers who's coming off a succesful season one year removed from TJ surgery. We got a top 50 prospect for a #2 starter. It's a good deal. Get over it.

id rather have a #2 starter than a top 50 prospect

Top 25*

Whats wrong with stocking the farm system?

You can't complain about the GM going all out after one good season, then complain about his replacement that makes trades for the future and continues to collect talent.

Stop being a hypocrite and be happy we have a few more chips that will work out nicely in future trades.

Michael Bradley · Post #160 » by **Michael Bradley** » Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:23 am

I like Lawrie if he sticks at 2B or 3B. Or at least I like his potential with the bat. I highly, highly doubt he will stay at 2B. I'm guessing the Jays will try him at 3B, but I have no clue how he projects defensively over there. If he moves to the outfield or first base, then 1) he better explode offensively, and 2) there better be a lot more coming back in this trade than just him.