Trade Scott Linebrink before it's too late?

[padrefanforever]

It is a complete certainty that this is how I feel......where he's concerned......and has been for over 2 years now

[JayDawg27]

If Linebrink is as done as you, an average fan, claim him to be what makes you think major league GMs who are paid to make assessments of whether or not ball players are able to keep succeeding will not see the same thing?

And if they come to the same conclusion you have come to after 2 bad outings (Hell, even before the 2 bad outings.) what makes you think we'll get anything of value for him?

I would argue that PFF is far from being an average fan.

To answer your question it's because the GM is trying to squeeze blood from a turnip so that he doesnt take a loss on a player when we the fan can see the obvious, cause it doesnt cost us a dime. GM's can be blinded by their wallets and salaries and not admit that they have a declining player because they have so much invested in him.

[HollywoodLeo]

Jay, I was talking about the GMs that would be trading for him.

If pff, a random fan, can see that Linebrink isn't going anywhere but down, what makes you think another team's GM would want to trade for him?

[JayDawg27]

Okay maybe my coffee hasnt kicked in yet then. Are you guys arguing the same thing or against eachother. PFF is saying trae him now while he still has value, before he goes out there and keeps blowing games and declines in value.

Your saying that because the average fan already knows this is happening so do all the GM's and therefore he has already lost his value.

Is this correct? What am I missing in your arguements?

[HollywoodLeo]

Ok, quick recap of the debate

- PFF says deals should be made sooner rather than later so you can get top value for players

- I point out that it's not a given that everyone's value will do nothing but drop as time goes on, citing Linebrink as an example because he had been doing good for awhile after a few bad outings in April (when everyone was saying to trade him.)

- pff informs me that I only think he's been good as of late because he hasn't been used that often

- I point out Linebrink's 0.52 ERA over a 17 appearance stretch to point out that he has, indeed, been good as of late

- After Scotty proceeds to give up a home run to Veritek and blow last night's lead, pff points to them and says we should trade him now

- I agree that we should trade him, but my reasons lie more on us having a strong bullpen that can withstand his loss than it does a supposed given that Scotty will continue to blow leads if we don't trade him.

In short, what we're debating is whether or not Linebrink is truly on the downward spiral that PFF is making him out to be.

The premise of my question was basically that PFF is insinuating that Scotty will never have a higher trade value than what he has now...basically saying he'll never be as good as he has been in the past up till this point in time.

He's stating this with such certainty as to insinuate that it should be fairly obvious (or at least that's how I'm reading it.)

So the reasoning behind my question is, if it's such a certainty that he will never be as good as he used to be....why would anyone want to trade for him?

Teams trade for what they'll get in the future, not what players did in the past.

Basically, I'm saying you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that a guy will never be as good as he used to be, and then turn around and insinuate that we should be able to get anything of value for him with the implication that we're dragging our feet if we're not.

It's one of two things

- Either Scotty could, indeed, bounce back and continue to be good. Meaning it's not such a horrible thing to hold on to him. (And maybe trade another Bullpen arm to satisfy my reasoning for trading him...)

- or PFF is correct and Scotty can't go anywhere but down...but if he is correct there's no way we should expect to get anything useful in return for him in a trade so there's no use in demanding that they trade him.

[JayDawg27]

Thanks I needed that :-)

I think it is somewhere in the middle to be honest with you. We have seen Scotty roller Coaster since he has been here, He does great and then he sucks then he does great again and then he sucks again.

If we want to trade him for a big bat now, PFF is right because if he is going down like he is known to do, then he may not come back up for a month or so and we will miss the trade opportunity with another 1-2 appearances, because no one will want him. If he does start to pitch well again and it is August, then we may have missed the opportunity to get what we could have for him, but he may then have value for us in the BP.

I hope that made sense, i see where you are both coming from, you are both right. If we need him as a valuable trade commodity, then the time is now, because if he is going into a slump he will be worthless until he comes out of it, and by then it might be too late.

[padrefanforever]

HWood you're close......but I've never said he's declining.....that's something you added......I did say his value is as high as it will ever be......but I think he's got a few years left of quality in him.......I think he plateaued around 2 years ago, and leveled off, and will not get any better.....as our bullpen can withstand the loss of Scott, it makes sense to me to trade him while his value is as high ( IMO ) as it will ever be, and get as much as we can for him.......

The only thing I can see happening is a decline, and I'm not interested in KT holding onto our best trading chip too long and blowing the opportunity to move him before he hits FA, and only fetches a comp pick......

I'm not a Linebrink fan to begin with, but his value to us IMO is in tradeability not on the hill anymore. We have plenty of guys that can do what he does or did, and a few in AAA waiting for an opportunity to show what they have to offer.

So while he's still worth a damn, move him and get something we need in return. He wont fetch it alone, but he is sure a nice chip in a package to a team that needs bullpen help.....and that's not us

[HollywoodLeo]

HWood you're close......but I've never said he's declining.....that's something you added......

When you say his value is higher than it'll ever be you're saying he's declining.

Unless you're telling me there's another factor that gives a player trade value?

I did say his value is as high as it will ever be......but I think he's got a few years left of quality in him.......I think he plateaued around 2 years ago, and leveled off, and will not get any better.....

See. You're saying it again right here.

as our bullpen can withstand the loss of Scott, it makes sense to me to trade him while his value is as high ( IMO ) as it will ever be, and get as much as we can for him.......

I'm all for trading him.

I'd be just as content trading Heath Bell if that's what it takes to get what we need.

The only thing I can see happening is a decline, and I'm not interested in KT holding onto our best trading chip too long and blowing the opportunity to move him before he hits FA, and only fetches a comp pick......

The problem is, it takes two to tango and I fear nobody's going to want to take on a guy who leaves after the season is over, at least not in exchange for what we'd need.

A team in contention is not going to give up that kind of player and a team that's not in contention is not going to trade for a guy who leaves after the season is over.

I'm not a Linebrink fan to begin with, but his value to us IMO is in tradeability not on the hill anymore. We have plenty of guys that can do what he does or did, and a few in AAA waiting for an opportunity to show what they have to offer.

There's a reason Linebrink is tradeable...because of what he's done on the mound.

All those guys you reference are just as tradeable. (Some more or less, but just about equally.)

So while he's still worth a damn, move him and get something we need in return. He wont fetch it alone, but he is sure a nice chip in a package to a team that needs bullpen help.....and that's not us

The thing is.... I can make the same statement for Heath Bell, Cla Meredith, and a few others.

BTW, deleted your double post if that's cool

[padrefanforever]

[QUOTE]

When you say his value is higher than it'll ever be you're saying he's declining.

Unless you're telling me there's another factor that gives a player trade value?

NO.....I'm saying he's leveled off and should maintain that level for a while.....it's not either up or down.....thinking like is EXACTLY what I try not to do.

I'd be just as content trading Heath Bell if that's what it takes to get what we need.

Why trade Bell who we control, when you can trade Linebrink who it doesn't seem is going to get a contract extension and will be lost to FA ?

The problem is, it takes two to tango and I fear nobody's going to want to take on a guy who leaves after the season is over, at least not in exchange for what we'd need.

Again....I've been wanting this for two years now.......last year especially, and we didn't pull the trigger then either, and got bounced out of the playoffs due to a lack of run support......

A team in contention is not going to give up that kind of player and a team that's not in contention is not going to trade for a guy who leaves after the season is over.

Unless you can take a huge contract off their books, then it's very possible.....ie the Reds

The thing is.... I can make the same statement for Heath Bell, Cla Meredith, and a few others.

I think it's apples to oranges.......and far from the same thing, plus I don't think those guys don't hold the same value as Linebrink yet

BTW, deleted your double post if that's cool

no prob if that was to me still

[HollywoodLeo]

NO.....I'm saying he's leveled off and should maintain that level for a while.....it's not either up or down.....thinking like is EXACTLY what I try not to do.

Fair enough. But that's not the impression you give when you imply that "we need to trade him now"

If he's not going to decline why is it so imperative that we trade him now, as opposed to later?

Why trade Bell who we control, when you can trade Linebrink who it doesn't seem is going to get a contract extension and will be lost to FA ?

If a team is willing to trade us a commodity that would help the team for Heath Bell, but will not accept Scott Linebrink....you trade Heath Bell.

You then worry about the bullpen for 2008 later. KT has proven he can put together a good pen, so I wouldn't be overly concerned about that.

Again....I've been wanting this for two years now.......last year especially, and we didn't pull the trigger then either, and got bounced out of the playoffs due to a lack of run support......

But who did we not pull the trigger on it with? Wilson Betimit? Do you really think he would've made much of a difference?

Unless you can take a huge contract off their books, then it's very possible.....ie the Reds

The problem being, the Padres aren't the only team looking to trade for an upgrade.

Using the Reds as an example, the Padres are not the only team talking to them about Dunn.

Just because they're looking to dump salary doesn't mean they're going to give Dunn to the first team who calls.

If someone can offer them a player, or players that they can control for more than just the rest of a wasted season why would they take Linebrink, who's leaving at the end of the year?

Or hell, even if you focus on just the Padres, if I'm Wayne Krivisky, assuming I want a padres relief pitcher in the deal, I'm telling Kevin Towers "I want Heath Bell, not Scott Linebrink"....for the same reason you ask "why trade Bell?"

I think it's apples to oranges.......and far from the same thing, plus I don't think those guys don't hold the same value as Linebrink yet

How is it apples and oranges? They're all relief pitchers that can be used as part of a package for a trade and our pen can survive with the loss of just one of them.

I also think that Heath Bell's trade value is higher than that of Scott Linebrink's....unless you're willing to trade for prospects, which I doubt is what you're arguing here.

[padrefanforever]

[QUOTE]

Fair enough. But that's not the impression you give when you imply that "we need to trade him now"

You make the deal now.....to avoid the chance that he does decline, and because we can afford to be without him.

If he's not going to decline why is it so imperative that we trade him now, as opposed to later?

IMO the longer we have him, the less likely we will be to move him at all....my personal opinion

If a team is willing to trade us a commodity that would help the team for Heath Bell, but will not accept Scott Linebrink....you trade Heath Bell.

Of course......I don't think that would happen, but of course.....

But who did we not pull the trigger on it with? Wilson Betimit? Do you really think he would've made much of a difference?

Nobody knows how Betemit would have reacted here, he might have thrived, he might have failed, but we don't know because we didn't pull the trigger and try to better ourselves in a black hole.....a strong fart would have been an upgrade at 3rd last year.

The problem being, the Padres aren't the only team looking to trade for an upgrade.

True, BUT many teams are looking for arms at this time, which we have a surplus of, and IMO is the reason KT and SA have been stockpiling them....

Using the Reds as an example, the Padres are not the only team talking to them about Dunn.

I agree, but most teams aren't willing to part with the ML ready talent we are....some are interested in tossing in only prospects, and while thats fine and dandy, they are still unprovens.......and that sometimes isn't what GM's want.

Just because they're looking to dump salary doesn't mean they're going to give Dunn to the first team who calls.

Just like you said........we're not the first team, but we're still being considered...and the Reds made the right play, they asked for the world, and got shot down, now they will need to take a hard look at what best suits their team......

If someone can offer them a player, or players that they can control for more than just the rest of a wasted season why would they take Linebrink, who's leaving at the end of the year?

If you have to use other guys, then do it, but they also could be looking to him to be their closer of the future.....

Or hell, even if you focus on just the Padres, if I'm Wayne Krivisky, assuming I want a padres relief pitcher in the deal, I'm telling Kevin Towers "I want Heath Bell, not Scott Linebrink"....for the same reason you ask "why trade Bell?"

And if you're KT maybe your response is....."enjoy watching the playoffs again"

How is it apples and oranges? They're all relief pitchers that can be used as part of a package for a trade and our pen can survive with the loss of just one of them.

Not all relievers are considered ready to become closers......Linebrink is by many making his stock more valuable...in theory

I also think that Heath Bell's trade value is higher than that of Scott Linebrink's....unless you're willing to trade for prospects, which I doubt is what you're arguing here.

I don't.....see we're allowed to disagree

[HollywoodLeo]

You make the deal now.....to avoid the chance that he does decline, and because we can afford to be without him.


IMO the longer we have him, the less likely we will be to move him at all....my personal opinion

Fair enough, but I'm not of the opinion that we have to trade him just to trade him.

Of course......I don't think that would happen, but of course.....

I do. Teams would rather have someone that isn't going to walk at the end of the year, at least teams that have what we'd be looking for and are willing to part with it.

Nobody knows how Betemit would have reacted here, he might have thrived, he might have failed, but we don't know because we didn't pull the trigger and try to better ourselves in a black hole.....

Or Betimit could've done just as...*ahem*....good as he did in LA. In which case it would've been a horrible trade.

a strong fart would have been an upgrade at 3rd last year.

That doesn't mean we should trade Linebrink for a strong fart.

If we wanted to trade for a strong fart we could've traded a AA pitcher for a decent hitting utility 2nd baseman and put him at third base.

True, BUT many teams are looking for arms at this time, which we have a surplus of, and IMO is the reason KT and SA have been stockpiling them....


I agree, but most teams aren't willing to part with the ML ready talent we are....some are interested in tossing in only prospects, and while thats fine and dandy, they are still unprovens.......and that sometimes isn't what GM's want.

None of this alters the fact that the team that'd be trying to trade with us would not want to trade for a guy who could walk at the end of the season.

Just like you said........we're not the first team, but we're still being considered...and the Reds made the right play, they asked for the world, and got shot down, now they will need to take a hard look at what best suits their team......

A player not being on their team in 2008 doesn't suit their team very well.

If you have to use other guys, then do it, but they also could be looking to him to be their closer of the future.....

Hard for him to be their closer if he signs elsewhere in free agency.

And if you're KT maybe your response is....."enjoy watching the playoffs again"

Sure enough, but then padrefanforever's response on strike3forums would be "Why did we not trade Linebrink for Dunn when we had the chance?"

Not all relievers are considered ready to become closers......Linebrink is by many making his stock more valuable...in theory

Linebrink is just as proven in that role as Heath Bell and Cla Meredith are.

Ok, just a tad more because he has a couple saves on his record.

I don't.....see we're allowed to disagree

fair enough

[padrefanforever]

Betemit......who knows.......compared to FPV/RB/Blum/Walker .....I'd still wager he posted better overall stats, while playing better defense, but again we'll never know because we didn't pull the trigger.....

I would say to that is any team showing interest in Linebrink as their closer, and looking to dump salary at the sametime, just might want to get the inside track on both.... In my eyes the Reds seem to fit that bill......Where they are concerned though, they are said to have wanted Linebrink and I think KT said no......I've only heard the names Hensley/Hampson in any deal offered by KT

[HollywoodLeo]

Betemit......who knows.......compared to FPV/RB/Blum/Walker .....I'd still wager he posted better overall stats, while playing better defense, but again we'll never know because we didn't pull the trigger.....

I made a bet of 2 beers at Tivolis with AztecBacker last year that 1) Betimit would out perform Walker from the trade deadline on and 2) Scott Linebrink would not maintain his ERA from the trade deadline on below 3.00.

1 beer for each bet.

I met up with AztecBacker at Tivolis near the end of the season and bought him two beers.

Betimit would've cost us Scott Linebrink, Todd Walker cost us a minor leaguer...and not even a good one at that.

The non trade of Scott Linebrink last season was a good non-move. Even if it is one I wanted them to make at the time.

I would say to that is any team showing interest in Linebrink as their closer, and looking to dump salary at the sametime, just might want to get the inside track on both.... In my eyes the Reds seem to fit that bill......Where they are concerned though, they are said to have wanted Linebrink and I think KT said no......I've only heard the names Hensley/Hampson in any deal offered by KT

If the Reds want Linebrink as their closer they can sign him in the offseason.

Why should they give up Adam Dunn for him (as opposed to someone else) when they could sign him in the offseason?

And I'm sure if the Reds offered Dunn for Linebrink Towers would accept it faster than a Nolan Ryan fastball.

I guarantee any reports of the Reds asking for Linebrink didn't involve Dunn coming our way, or it involved a lot more players that was too much.

[FmrFresnan]

You know what's funny, Padre fans talk about bringing in Adam Dunn and others talk about how often he strikes out and how bad he was defensively. We actually had our own Adam Dunn, a younger version actually in Portland...his name is Jack Cust. We had this kid in AAA and decided that his lack of defense was enough of a reason to trade him? So, Cust gets traded because of his lack of defense, yet we've seen Branyan start 3 or 4 games in left?