Brewcrew82’s 2023 Payroll Blueprint (3.0)

[Brewcrew82]

18 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

Woodruff being a year older counters him being marginally better than Castillo. 

Huh? Castillo is older than Woodruff...

[wiguy94]

21 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Huh? Castillo is older than Woodruff...

You said Woodruff's extension doesn't kick in until his final year of arb? Either Woodruff is older and his extension kicks in during 2024 or Woodruff is younger and his extension kicks in for 2023 which factors in two arb years and is too big of a contract.

Castillo's contract takes him through his age 34 season. If Woodruff's extension kicks in during 2024 like you said then it would take him through his age 35 season (a year older than Castillo).

So which is it?

[Brewcrew82]

22 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

You said Woodruff's extension doesn't kick in until his final year of arb? Either Woodruff is older and his extension kicks in during 2024 or Woodruff is younger and his extension kicks in for 2023 which factors in two arb years and is too big of a contract.

Castillo's contract takes him through his age 34 season. If Woodruff's extension kicks in during 2024 like you said then it would take him through his age 35 season (a year older than Castillo).

So which is it?

To start, Woodruff is younger than Castillo. That is an incontrovertible fact. And, as I said, to play it safe in terms of time, my extension assumes an in-season agreement, in which case it doesn't kick in until 2024. That, plus 4 more years takes it through 2028, or Woodruff's age 35 season. 5 years $118 Million. Far from unreasonable. Obviously, the ideal would be an agreement this offseason which would preempt the two arb years and take him through one less year at 34. That may cost more, however, despite the presence of the Castillo contract as the Castillo deal was largely team-friendly. For now, I'll err on the side of caution and assume a higher total cost more in line with market value, and then be pleasantly surprised if a future agreement comes in cheaper. 

[wiguy94]

8 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

To start, Woodruff is younger than Castillo. That is an incontrovertible fact. And, as I said, to play it safe in terms of time, my extension assumes an in-season agreement, in which case it doesn't kick in until 2024. That, plus 4 more years takes it through 2028, or Woodruff's age 35 season. 5 years $118 Million. Far from unreasonable. Obviously, the ideal would be an agreement this offseason which would preempt the two arb years and take him through one less year at 34. That may cost more, however, despite the presence of the Castillo contract as the Castillo deal was largely team-friendly. For now, I'll err on the side of caution and assume a higher total cost more in line with market value, and then be pleasantly surprised if a future agreement comes in cheaper. 

I was talking age in comparison to when the contracts were signed. Was pretty clear.

[Brewcrew82]

3 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

I was talking age in comparison to when the contracts were signed. Was pretty clear.

Not really. If it was that clear, you would have said "when the contracts are signed." Why me and another poster understood it in that way. 

[StearnsFTW]

I like it.  Well done.

Only quibble would be I don't see any way Oakland trades Puk for Taylor.  I'd love that deal no matter what other moves we'd make, but I can't see Oakland doing that.

 

 

[Brewcrew82]

31 minutes ago, StearnsFTW said:

I like it.  Well done.

Only quibble would be I don't see any way Oakland trades Puk for Taylor.  I'd love that deal no matter what other moves we'd make, but I can't see Oakland doing that.

 

 

I feel like they might as Taylor has been better than Puk (4.0 vs 1.3 WAR), has the same amount of control left as Puk, and they're in need of outfielders. FWIW, pr BTV, Oakland is the one that comes out with surplus value in this trade to the tune of 13.0 (Puk has a 0 MTV). 

[Jopal78]

On 10/28/2022 at 11:14 PM, Brewcrew82 said:

The "trade Corbin Burnes and still be competitive" edition:

Kolten Wong, option declined

Brent Suter, non-tendered

Trevor Gott, non-tendered

Victor Caratini, non-tendered

Robert Suarez, signed for 2 years at 9M AAV, 3rd year team option

Jose Abreu, signed for 3 years at 18.5M AAV

Corbin Burnes, traded to BAL for Grayson Rodriguez, Jordan Westberg, and Seth Johnson

Tyrone Taylor, traded to OAK for A.J. Puk

Danny Jansen, acquired from TOR for Garrett Mitchell and Carlos Rodriguez (P) 

Brandon Woodruff, extended for 5 years at $118M, 6th year vesting option

Vs. RHP                                     Vs. LHP

Frelick                                      Frelick

Jansen                                     Jansen

Yelich                                       Abreu

Abreu                                       Renfroe

Tellez                                       Adames

Adames                                   Yelich

Renfroe                                    Urias

Westburg                                Westburg

Turang                                     Brosseau

 

• C: Danny Jansen ($3.70M)
• 1B: Jose Abreu ($18.50M)
• 2B: Luis Urias ($4.30M)
• 3B: Jordan Westburg ($0.70M)
• SS: Willy Adames ($9.20M)
• LF: Christian Yelich ($26.00M)
• CF: Sal Frelick ($0.70M)
• RF: Hunter Renfroe ($11.20M)
• DH: Rowdy Tellez ($5.30M)
• Bench OF: Esteury Ruiz ($0.70M)
• Utility: Brice Turang ($0.70M)
• Utility: Mike Brosseau ($1.00M)
• Backup C: Mario Feliciano ($0.70M)
• SP1: Brandon Woodruff ($11.00M)
• SP2: Freddy Peralta ($3.50M)
• SP3: Eric Lauer ($5.20M)
• SP4: Grayson Rodriguez ($0.70M)
• SP5: Adrian Houser ($3.50M)
• CL: Devin Williams ($3.20M)
• RP: Robert Suarez ($9.00M)
• RP: Matt Bush ($2.00M)
• RP: AJ Puk ($0.70M)
• RP: Jake Cousins ($0.70M)
• RP: Peter Strzlecki ($0.70M)
• RP: Holby Milner ($1.10M)
• RP: Aaron Ashby ($1.20M)

Payroll is 3.69% under budget

 Why would Baltimore want Corbin Burnes if it costs them Grayson Rodriguez and Westburg? With a negative run differential last year (-14), and being in a strong division, adding Burnes wouldn't put them over the top in '23,  and Burnes is a free agent in 2 years.

With dwindling team control, this prospective trade doesn't make sense for Baltimore; they'd be better off simply rolling with Grayson Rodriguez and Westburg for six years than Burnes for two. Moreover, Seth Johnson hasn't pitched above A-ball and just underwent Tommy John surgery, as a 2019 draftee he will need to be on a 40 man roster before he likely is even healthy again, let alone close to major league ready. 

 

[Brewcrew82]

54 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

 Why would Baltimore want Corbin Burnes if it costs them Grayson Rodriguez and Westburg? With a negative run differential last year (-14), and being in a strong division, adding Burnes wouldn't put them over the top in '23,  and Burnes is a free agent in 2 years.

With dwindling team control, this prospective trade doesn't make sense for Baltimore; they'd be better off simply rolling with Grayson Rodriguez and Westburg for six years than Burnes for two. Moreover, Seth Johnson hasn't pitched above A-ball and just underwent Tommy John surgery, as a 2019 draftee he will need to be on a 40 man roster before he likely is even healthy again, let alone close to major league ready. 

 

Their GM has made clear to fans that the organization is ready to compete right now and that they're willing to significantly increase their payroll and potentially part with some higher-level prospects. https://www.mlb.com/news/orioles-mike-elias-could-expand-payroll-in-2023 

And their run differential last year was in negative territory largely due to their slow start. From June on, they finished 12 games above .500 with a +22 run differential, as their young and exciting core, headlined by Rutschman and Henderson, was called up and given increased playing opportunities. They're quite similar to the Cubs in 2014, who finished strong on the backs of their young players and then took off for 90+ wins the next season. There's a reason why a report came out just yesterday naming them as a likely DeGrom bidder. Assuming they don't end up landing one of the big three in FA, they might then turn to the trade market to obtain their ace, which is where Burnes would then come in. Rodriguez or Holiday (and another top 100 prospect such as Westburg) would ultimately have to be the starting point for the Brewers to budge. The payroll space would also be there for them to make as serious run at extending Burnes.

[Jopal78]

50 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Their GM has made clear to fans that the organization is ready to compete right now and that they're willing to significantly increase their payroll and potentially part with some higher-level prospects. https://www.mlb.com/news/orioles-mike-elias-could-expand-payroll-in-2023 

And their run differential last year was in negative territory largely due to their slow start. From June on, they finished 12 games above .500 with a +22 run differential, as their young and exciting core, headlined by Rutschman and Henderson, was called up and given increased playing opportunities. They're quite similar to the Cubs in 2014, who finished strong on the backs of their young players and then took off for 90+ wins the next season. There's a reason why a report came out just yesterday naming them as a likely DeGrom bidder. Assuming they don't end up landing one of the big three in FA, they might then turn to the trade market to obtain their ace, which is where Burnes would then come in. Rodriguez or Holiday (and another top 100 prospect such as Westburg) would ultimately have to be the starting point for the Brewers to budge. The payroll space would also be there for them to make as serious run at extending Burnes.

Well. that's just it.. the Cubs didn't trade away Bryant and Baez to land a #1 starter, they signed Jon Lester as a free agent. Similarly, DeGrom or others would only cost Baltimore money.

I'd be all for the Brewers getting a starting pitching prospect who is regarded as amongst the top 5 prospects in the game (plus other players), but for the Orioles it would be sort of counter intuitive to trade someone like that for a pitcher with dwindling control.

Also, simply because Baltimore has payroll space, doesn't make it more likely they could hypothetically come to an extension agreement with Burnes as premium players approaching the end of their arbitration years almost universally declare free agency, 

[Brewcrew82]

1 minute ago, Jopal78 said:

Well. that's just it.. the Cubs didn't trade away Bryant and Baez to land a #1 starter, they signed Jon Lester as a free agent. Similarly, DeGrom or others would only cost Baltimore money.

I'd be all for the Brewers getting a starting pitching prospect who is regarded as amongst the top 5 prospects in the game (plus other players), but it's sort of counter intuitive to trade someone like that for a pitcher with dwindling control. Also, simply because Baltimore has payroll space, doesn't make it more or less likely they could hypothetically come to an extension agreement with Burnes as premium players approaching the end of their arbitration years almost universally declare free agency, 

But what are the chances of them actually landing DeGrom, Verlander, or Rodon? Like, less than 10%. In that case, to the trade market they go....

As far as an extension, Musgrove and Castillo are recent examples of top tier starting pitchers who decided to forgo their prime FA opportunity and instead sign an extension with the clubs they were recently traded to. 

 

[Jopal78]

21 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

But what are the chances of them actually landing DeGrom, Verlander, or Rodon? Like, less than 10%. In that case, to the trade market they go....

As far as an extension, Musgrove and Castillo are recent examples of top tier starting pitchers who decided to forgo their prime FA opportunity and instead sign an extension with the clubs they were recently traded to. 

 

When the Brewers signed Aramis Ramirez in 2012 he was asked why he came to Milwaukee after years of being with rival Chicago, and his response (paraphrased) was.... we play baseball for money, Milwaukee had the most money on the table so here I am.  Players go where the money is, if a team has the most money on a table for a particular player they will end up signing that player 90% of the time. Further, given the AAV which Cy Young caliber pitchers get, there are only five or so teams would be bidders at those prices. 

As for extensions, Musgrove and Castillo aren't really the same caliber of pitcher as Corbin Burnes, Corbin has much better career numbers than either of them already and is significantly better at 27 than either of those two were at that point in their careers. Unless Burnes is particularly scared of getting hurt, there's no reason for him to sign an extension with anyone and leave millions of potential extra dollars on the table as a free agent. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I could easily see the Orioles aggressively pursuing Burnes. Given the direction of the franchise, their potential for spending, and their robust farm system, it's exactly the kind of thing I see them trying this offseason.

[UpandIn]

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I could easily see the Orioles aggressively pursuing Burnes. Given the direction of the franchise, their potential for spending, and their robust farm system, it's exactly the kind of thing I see them trying this offseason.

Yeah, same here. I do think it's unlikely they'd trade Rodriguez AND another top 50 prospect for two years of Burnes when their window is pretty wide open, but that's gotta be the starting point. 

I also doubt they land deGrom or Verlander. Rodon is possible, but not sure he's got the track record you want leading your staff. Burnes on the other hand...he does. And it's entirely plausible they sign him to an extension if they're going to trade him. There are no rules determining what pitchers entering their final couple years of arbitration do. 

As mention, Castillo and Musgrove just got extensions...and if they're not good enough deGrom signed one. I believe Kershaw signed. Nola signed...just pitchers off the top of my head. So rather than paying deGrom what'll likely end up being 40+ as a FA, they could trade for Burnes, get a discount on his contract and still acquire their ace.

 

I do think maybe the trade proposals are just too much. If you've got one of the top 5 prospects in the game...who's a pitcher who sits comfortably in the upper 90s with 6 years of team control, do you want to give him AND another top 20-50 prospect who plays a premium position up? I don't know, but that should be the Brewers asking price. I think in this hypothetical it'd also make some sense to expand the trade. If Baltimore is going for it this year, then they've got a hole in the OF. So maybe they throw in Mitchell or an OFer into the deal. I don't know, but again, you HAVE to ask for the moon for Burnes. He's a 28 year old Cy Young winner with multiple years of team control. That should net you a couple of top 50 prospects and then a couple of top 50-150 prospects without getting too specific. 

 

[UpandIn]

On 10/31/2022 at 10:00 AM, Brewcrew82 said:

I feel like they might as Taylor has been better than Puk (4.0 vs 1.3 WAR), has the same amount of control left as Puk, and they're in need of outfielders. FWIW, pr BTV, Oakland is the one that comes out with surplus value in this trade to the tune of 13.0 (Puk has a 0 MTV). 

Taylor is a perfect example of where I think the trade value is skewed. 

He's a good defensive CFer who's going to be 29 years old, is coming off his best season, walked fewer than 5% of the time, strikes out a lot...and he's got a little power, but he's a rotational OFer at best.

Puk has the stuff to be a high leverage reliever. I think WAR undervalues relievers. I think the A's could and would wise to trade Puk for younger prospects with more upside. I don't really know what Taylor gets them. 

On a side note, is any team in baseball in worse shape right now than Oakland? They are getting NOTHING back from their Chapman/Olson trades. They've got a terrible farm system, their MLB roster is devoid of talent. They have not made a lot of great moves recently. The Luzardo trade being one that was particularly bad at the time and doesn't look any better in retrospect. 

[Brewcrew82]

28 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

Taylor is a perfect example of where I think the trade value is skewed. 

He's a good defensive CFer who's going to be 29 years old, is coming off his best season, walked fewer than 5% of the time, strikes out a lot...and he's got a little power, but he's a rotational OFer at best.

Puk has the stuff to be a high leverage reliever. I think WAR undervalues relievers. I think the A's could and would wise to trade Puk for younger prospects with more upside. I don't really know what Taylor gets them. 

On a side note, is any team in baseball in worse shape right now than Oakland? They are getting NOTHING back from their Chapman/Olson trades. They've got a terrible farm system, their MLB roster is devoid of talent. They have not made a lot of great moves recently. The Luzardo trade being one that was particularly bad at the time and doesn't look any better in retrospect. 

WAR may undervalue relievers, but position players are still more valuable. Taylor is also a big upgrade over their current outfielders, with the exception of Laureano. 

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, UpandIn said:

On a side note, is any team in baseball in worse shape right now than Oakland? They are getting NOTHING back from their Chapman/Olson trades. They've got a terrible farm system, their MLB roster is devoid of talent. They have not made a lot of great moves recently. The Luzardo trade being one that was particularly bad at the time and doesn't look any better in retrospect. 

The Chapman/Olson era ran in Oakland from '18-21 during that time the Athletics won 316 games. By comparison the Brewers won 306 during that time frame. That A's group was a good team but couldn't reach the top of the mountain during their window. 

Their farm system isn't any different than Milwaukee's in that when you win a lot of games like the A's and Brewers you pick near the bottom of the round where the odds of hitting on a player are less.

Also the trades of Olson and Chapman illustrate the dangers of trading quality major leaguers with remaining team control for prospects. They destroyed the major league roster and those prospects they received haven't lived up to their billing yet (Braves #2, #3, #10 and #15)(Toronto's #4, #8 and others). 

When the Brewers ultimately swap off Woodruff and Burnes they will be heading down a similar path. 

[UpandIn]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

WAR may undervalue relievers, but position players are still more valuable. Taylor is also a big upgrade over their current outfielders, with the exception of Laureano. 

They're a 100 loss team and I don't expect they think that's going to change.

So the question is which is going to be more valuable at the trade deadline? A guy who plays good(but not great) defense and carries a walk rate of ~5% or a reliever who throws in the upper 90s with nasty stuff?

At least with one you could get a nice prospect back. I just don't see much value to Taylor. 

[UpandIn]

31 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

The Chapman/Olson era ran in Oakland from '18-21 during that time the Athletics won 316 games. By comparison the Brewers won 306 during that time frame. That A's group was a good team but couldn't reach the top of the mountain during their window. 

Their farm system isn't any different than Milwaukee's in that when you win a lot of games like the A's and Brewers you pick near the bottom of the round where the odds of hitting on a player are less.

Also the trades of Olson and Chapman illustrate the dangers of trading quality major leaguers with remaining team control for prospects. They destroyed the major league roster and those prospects they received haven't lived up to their billing yet (Braves #2, #3, #10 and #15)(Toronto's #4, #8 and others). 

When the Brewers ultimately swap off Woodruff and Burnes they will be heading down a similar path. 

I doubt they will...and they should get more back than Chapman or Olson.

Atlanta's farm system had been emptied out with young players filling up their MLB roster.

 

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, UpandIn said:

I doubt they will...and they should get more back than Chapman or Olson.

Atlanta's farm system had been emptied out with young players filling up their MLB roster.

 

There's always an excuse isn't there?

Despite being "emptied out" prior to trading for Matt  Olson, the Braves somehow still had likely '22 ROY Michael Harris (5.3 war), Vaughn Grissom (0.9 war in 41 games) and Spencer Strider (3.7 war). 

It's the "veteran for prospect" game. You don't know what you're getting until the minor leaguers actually "make it" in the majors. Sometimes a team will come out ahead but probably 50% of the time they don't work out for the team getting the prospects. 

[UpandIn]

27 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

There's always an excuse isn't there?

Despite being "emptied out" prior to trading for Matt  Olson, the Braves somehow still had likely '22 ROY Michael Harris (5.3 war), Vaughn Grissom (0.9 war in 41 games) and Spencer Strider (3.7 war). 

It's the "veteran for prospect" game. You don't know what you're getting until the minor leaguers actually "make it" in the majors. Sometimes a team will come out ahead but probably 50% of the time they don't work out for the team getting the prospects. 

LOL...what are you talking about? Excuse for who? Who am I meant to be "defending" or excusing for anything?

They traded two stars and got back what appears to be a terrible package thus far. 

Strider just threw 94 IP last year('21) and struck out 153, so guessing the Braves weren't trading him(regardless of where he was ranked on whatever list you're going off). Harris was their future CFer and top prospect after Pache had lost most of his deal. 

Pache had gone from a top ~10 overall prospect to ~80 to not in the top 100 as he'd been terrible the first couple years in ATL. Basically Lewis Brinson, a catcher/LFer with a 40 hit tool and 35 speed and very little else.

For Matt Olson
-Ryan Cusik +7ERA in AA
-Joey Estes 4.55 ERA in HiA(A's 13th ranked prospect)
-Christian Pache -.6 WAR(-1.4 for his career)
-Langeliers-The one prospect who looks decent.

Same for Chapman. They got back...what, -1.5 WAR and nobody ranked in the top 100. 

Kirby Smart(28) -.7 WAR, 
Kevin Smith(26) .3 WAR .180/.216/.302 for a whopping .516 OPS
Zach Lowe(26) -1.1 War
Hoglund-Who's thrown 8 innings of professional baseball, all this year. 

 

What "excuse" do I need to make? What part of what I said isn't true?

They traded two GG corner IFers who had 2 years left of team control, two players who'd gotten MVP votes and got maybe one player back who looks like he could/maybe be a contributor this year...and HE put up a .218/.261/.430 line in 40 games. That's the BEST looking player they got back for those two stars. 

Did YOU make these trades? Is there some reason why you find this to be a personal affront to you?