The Big Trade: The Pitchers

by Ryan on Jul 7, 2008 10:51 PM EDT in Transactions Comment 44 comments

Received LHP Zach Jackson and RHP Robert Bryson from Milwaukee

If I were to rank the four players received in the deal, Jackson would be #4 (despite being the only one of the four to appear in a major-league game) and Bryson #3.

Zach Jackson was drafted in the Sandwich Round of the 2004 Draft by the Toronto Blue Jays. His stuff out of college was a fastball (low 90s), slider, and change. He was a pretty big guy (6'5", 220 lbs), especially for a left-handed pitcher, and one of his strong points was his durability. He struggled in the New York-Penn League, but rocketed all the way up to AAA in 2005. He appeared in the Futures Game that season, but struggled in AAA, which at the time could have been chalked up to being rushed.

The Blue Jays traded him, along with RHP David Bush and OF Gabe Gross to the Milwaukee Brewers for 1B Lyle Overbay. He was subsequently ranked by Baseball America as the Brewers' 10th-best prospect. Jackson made 7 unimpressive starts for the Brewers in the middle of the 2006 season, allowing 48 hits and 26 runs in 38.1 innings of work. He was optioned back to Nashville in mid-July with Tomo Ohka coming off the Disabled List, and finished the season poorly. He made all 28 starts of the 2007 season with Nashville, showing no signs of progress.

Before the 2008 season, he developed a split change to try to keep hitters off his fastball, and though he got more ground balls, saw his strikeout rates tank and hit rates skyrocket. He made a couple appearances for the Brewers, but I imagine that he was promoted merely because the Brewers needed an arm in the bullpen.

Jackson's a project. There isn't much about his stat line that recommends him for any major-league contribution this season. Perhaps a major mechanical overhaul is in order. Between Jackson and Jeff Weaver, Buffalo pitching coach Scott Radinsky is going to be a busy man over the next couple weeks.

Robert Bryson was selected by the Brewers in the 31st Round of the 2006 Draft. He elected to go to a junior college, and then signed with the Milwaukee organization the next spring. He started his professional career in the Pioneer League, and dominated his peers both in the bullpen and as a starter. This season, he's retained the high strikeout rates (73 in 55 innings), but has a mediocre ERA.

The reason the Indians had an interest in him is his upside. Bryson's fastball sits in the mid-90s, and he has a very good slider; that combination screams relief ace. As with any young arm that far down in the system, the risk of him not even making the majors is likewise high. Remember the name, but also understand he has a long way to go.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

So if Jackson is a project, is Huff our 5th starter who immediately becomes our 3rd starter?

Dear Mr. Sabean, I hear you have a reputation of being stupid. Want to deal Lincecum or Cain? You can pick THREE of these 4 players for either: Borowski, Dellucci, Blake, Byrd.

by westbrook on Jul 7, 2008 11:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Huff is going to be up here very soon. Hopefully between him coming up and Fausto Carmona coming back, the rotation will stabilize.

by Ryan on Jul 8, 2008 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It will be fun to follow Jackson and see if he can turn it around. The odds are against him, but there are plenty of examples of guys who have a “lightbulb moment” and figure it out.

by Toxicadam on Jul 7, 2008 11:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You know I forgot about the remark that Radinsky was going to be working with Weaver. I wonder if Weaver isn’t the fill in for CC, and he’s allowed to work things out in AAA the rest of this season in an effort to regain some of his old form.

by hans on Jul 8, 2008 12:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Jeff Weaver had 17 good starts in 2002, other than that, he has never been better than league average (102 OPS+) and been generally significant worse. If Weaver EVER takes the ball for the Indians, that is a very bad thing.

by gte619n on Jul 8, 2008 8:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really? As in, we might lose a game this year?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 8, 2008 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m excited about Weaver. May even buy a jersey to hang next to my Borowski, and Johnson jerseys.

by mjschaefer on Jul 8, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jackson is obviously very excited.

by dgcambridge on Jul 8, 2008 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s on my Christmas list

by mjschaefer on Jul 8, 2008 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

somewhat o/t but how has LGFT not been updated yet?!

by Brick. on Jul 8, 2008 10:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i checked it right after the trade went down. thought for sure it’d have something.

by Gradyforpresident on Jul 8, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The more I look at Jackson, the more I think “canon fodder.” He’s just been used and abused by an organization that had bigger problems to deal with than developing this guy, who showed some real promise right out of college.

I don’t know the exact circumstances of his 2006 callup, but I have to think the Indians would have never called up a guy who didn’t need to be rostered for another 15 months unless he was totally kicking ass, and Jackson wasn’t. They’d have found some Jeff Weaver type to play the role of “warm body” rather than starting this kid’s option clock and screwing with his development.

Jackson incredibly is now in his third option year — betcha he’s the only member of the 2004 draft class who can say that — but will get a fourth option for 2009 by virtue of the obscure “less than five full championship seasons” rule. But for that obscure rule, he’d be out of options next year, and we wouldn’t have even bothered picking him up.

by Jay on Jul 8, 2008 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I just wanted to point out that this post is kind of funny in light of the Brewers having already released Jeff Weaver this year. Also, Jackson’s only in his second option year, because spent all of 2007 in the minors.

He's extremely quick and good.

by battlekow on Jul 8, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I assume you know the Indians signed him to a minor league deal!

by peter m on Jul 8, 2008 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, exactly…

He's extremely quick and good.

by battlekow on Jul 8, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Respectfully, spending a whole season in the minors does use up an option year, if the player is already on the 40-man.

An option year is defined as any year in which a player on the major-league roster (the 40-man) is sent on “optional assignment” to a minor-league club. It has nothing to do with being called up, it has to do with being sent down — and being sent down at the end of Spring Training does count. The only exception, I believe, is for when a player who spends less than 20 days on optional assignment (i.e., in the minors) during a given season.

Note the language, from Brewers.com transactions:

3/24/07 – Optioned LHP Zach Jackson to Triple-A Nashville and returned RHP Mike Meyers and RHP Corey Thurman to Minor League camp.

The only way he didn’t use an option in 2007 is if he were DFA’ed and outrighted off the 40-man sometime after his last major-league appearance in 2006 and before the end of March 2007. I don’t see any sign that that was the case.

by Jay on Jul 8, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dead topics nomination: Definition of an option.

by fleerdon on Jul 8, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, you’re right. For some reason I had it in my head that he was off the 40-man last year, because I thought I remembered adding him this year, but I was thinking of Mark DiFelice. My bad.

He's extremely quick and good.

by battlekow on Jul 8, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So are you thinking “lost cause” or “possibly some residual upside” ?

by ganatz on Jul 8, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s a potential LOOGY, but that’s it.

He's extremely quick and good.

by battlekow on Jul 8, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given that his splits show even worse performance in 2006 against lefties than righties (ignoring the 1-for-6 in 2008), I doubt he’s even a LOOGY, although I’m willing to give Shapiro the benefit of the doubt for now.

by FredOx on Jul 8, 2008 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Majors or minors?

by Jay on Jul 8, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This year in AAA per Minor League Splits:
LHB: .314 BAA, 1.015 OPS, 2.84 HR/9
RHB: ..332 BAA, .931 OPS, 1.23 HR/9

by FredOx on Jul 8, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OUCH

Dear Mr. Sabean, I hear you have a reputation of being stupid. Want to deal Lincecum or Cain? You can pick THREE of these 4 players for either: Borowski, Dellucci, Blake, Byrd.

by westbrook on Jul 8, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s a L0OGY then?

by ganatz on Jul 8, 2008 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the Indians’ intent may be to return him to the rotation, either now or in some fall/winter/instructional league. The Indians like to stockpile substantial depth-starter options in Buffalo — five legit call-up-if-we-need-them guys — and we basically are down to only Huff and Miller for 2009. Sabathia and Byrd gone, Westbrook out for the first half, Lofgren not realistically part of that picture for 2009, Miller always a question, Slocum out of options, Stanford a free agent. They like depth. A lot.

by Jay on Jul 8, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry for the novice logistical question…since he was on the Brewers’ 40-man, does that mean he is automatically on the Indians’ 40-man upon being moved?

by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 9, 2008 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes

by talonk on Jul 9, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, let me clarify that. Anytime a player on a 40 man roster is moved from one team to another, he must be put on the new team’s 40 man as well, unless:

1. He is DFA’ed by the new team (which makes little to no sense unless that team had the worst record in the majors).

2. That player is being returned from the Rule 5 draft. The original team (prior to Rule 5 draft) can then put him back to the minors but not on their 40 man.

by talonk on Jul 9, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks.

by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 9, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don’t really need #2, because a Rule 5 player has to be DFA’ed, clear waivers and then be removed from the returning team’s 40-man roster before he can be returned.

by Jay on Jul 9, 2008 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I always thought they could offer the Rule 5 guy back to the original team before exposing him to waivers. I thought the waiver process occurred when the original team no longer wanted him and then tries to outright him off the 40? Maybe I’m remembering it wrong.

by talonk on Jul 9, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you are. Players have to clear waivers before they can be returned — consistent with the CBA in general on this point, you can’t remove any player from your 40-man roster without offering him to the other 29 teams first, since that way he’d get to stay on a 40-man roster. That’s part of overall roster rules designed to promote balance and deter stockpiling. Anyway, a Rule 5 guy is also protected by that rule, so he has to clear waivers, then he gets outrighted off the 40-man, at which point he has to be offered back to his original club before being assigned to a minor league team.

by Jay on Jul 9, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok, thanx!

by talonk on Jul 9, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and since he’s cleared waivers, if the original club does take him back, can they keep him off the 40 man?

by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 10, 2008 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course. He doesn’t even use up an option.

But I don’t mind having him on the 40-man at this point, because it’s time to remove Brad Snyder and possibly trade one or two others.

by Jay on Jul 10, 2008 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think he’s a lost cause. My guess is he was specifically chosen from all the other “filler” type pitchers because Shapiro saw some upside in thier. I mean heck look at the Phillips trade for Stevens. Stevens wasn’t blowing anyone away with his stuff when we acquired him, but the Indians scouting department saw something they like and now we have a decent reliever prospect.

by hans on Jul 8, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs