Hunter Renfroe to Angels for 3 pitchers

[LouisEly]

9 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

This is really the crux of the trade from the Brewers' perspective. The Angels are a train wreck and only time will tell if the Brewers just hood-winked LA.

Yep.  Someone let Buster Olney know that the Angels haven't exactly been the best-run franchise over Arte Moreno's ownership.

[Thurston Fluff]

37 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

i think this whole "lineup vs LHP" is a bit overblown.

Last year the Brewers faced RHP in 4,413 PAs (72% of PAs) vs. 1709 PAs (28%) vs LHP.  For every bit that they struggled vs LHP (90 OPS+) they were as good vs RHP (110 OPS+).  Identical BABiP vs both (.279).

I'd rather dominate the type of pitcher they face 72% of the time than 28% of the time.  Every RHP they keep/acquire will likely reduce their effectiveness vs. RHP who they face >70% of the time.  In 2021 it was even more skewed - 4,560 PAs vs RHP (75%) vs. 1,539 PAs vs. LHP (25%)

Well said. I'd just add that we do have two good lefty hitters on the bench to help in late innings so it's even less problematic than just the number of ab's against lefties.

[Brewcrew82]

20 minutes ago, monty57 said:

Renfroe and Wong are one-year deals, in a year in which we already have Burnes and Woodruff. Extensions would be funded with future money, when the Renfroe and Wong contracts will already be off the books (even if Renfroe wasn't traded). 

You're making an emotional argument (the team owes it to us) rather than a logical financial argument (will the funds be available, and is that the best usage of those funds). 

The question at hand is not whether they will do an extension of an existing player, but whether they will use the saved money to add players to the 2023 roster. I do not believe that they will have an opening day salary equal to what we saw this year, but with the Hader and Renfroe deals and the guys they recently got rid of, they should have enough money to add $10M-$20M to our current roster for 2023. 

To those who think that the available free agents market is light in corner IF/DH type players, remember that we could also trade for a higher-salary player. As we see in this trade, it doesn't necessarily cost a lot of "prospect capital" to acquire a decent bat. Maybe we just traded away a guy in an area of surplus (OF) and trade for a guy in an area of need (corner IF).

It's not strictly an emotional argument, though the "emotional fan" perspective is important as it's the fans that will be the ones purchasing the tickets and providing the franchise with that source of revenue.

It's also grounded in some degree of reason and logic. Good teams need to lock up their best players before they hit free agency. I'm not naive enough to think that they'll be able to lock up all 3 of Burnes, Woodruff, or Adames, but extending one of our pitchers in particular would be wise considering how crucial ace pitching is to a successful World Series formula and the general lack of high-level pitching talent in the farm right now. I have yet to see a convincing argument that the payroll isn't there for at least one upper-tier extension. 

We may not be the Dodgers or Yankees, but we're also not the A's/Rays either due to consistent strong support from the fanbase. Keep making moves like this, however, without subsequently reinvesting in the roster, and fan support will dwindle and we will become one of those teams. 

[areacodes]

31 minutes ago, DR28 said:

Yep we arent doing anything with the money we saved... Trade Burnes and Woodruff as well.

You have no idea if the Brewers will or will not do anything with the money saved. There is no way you can make a definitive statement on 11/23 that they won’t when the off-season has barely begun.

[DR28]

17 minutes ago, areacodes said:

You have no idea if the Brewers will or will not do anything with the money saved. There is no way you can make a definitive statement on 11/23 that they won’t when the off-season has barely begun.

Lol ok... Hader and Renfroe trades tell everything need to know.

Sure hope I will be eating crow in the coming months.

[monty57]

7 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

It's not strictly an emotional argument, though the "emotional fan" perspective is important as it's the fans that will be the ones purchasing the tickets and providing the franchise with that source of revenue.

It's also grounded in some degree of reason and logic. Good teams need to lock up their best players before they hit free agency. I'm not naive enough to think that they'll be able to lock up all 3 of Burnes, Woodruff, or Adames, but extending one of our pitchers in particular would be wise considering how crucial ace pitching is to a successful World Series formula and the general lack of high-level pitching talent in the farm right now. I have yet to see a convincing argument that the payroll isn't there for at least one upper-tier extension. 

We may not be the Dodgers or Yankees, but we're also not the A's/Rays either due to consistent strong support from the fanbase. Keep making moves like this, however, without subsequently reinvesting in the roster, and fan support will dwindle and we will become one of those teams. 

Signing one of Burnes/Woodruff/Adames to an extension may or may not be a good idea. 

Trading Renfroe and not having to pay him in 2023 has little to no significance in whether or not one of Burnes/Woodruff/Adames are extended.

I think that the drop in ticket sales last year has them a little spooked, and I think they may have lost money last year because of it. My guess is that the opening day payroll will be lower than last year's $132M, and they may be hesitant in guaranteeing future money if they are uncertain of future revenue.

I think that since much of the drop in ticket sales was mostly seen in group ticket sales, it was probably a carry-over from Covid, as businesses were not willing to spend money to take large groups of employees and customers to a sporting event. Therefore, I think the sales will come back, but there's no certainty of that, so it makes sense that teams would take some caution going into this year.

That said, with this trade in the books, Cot's has us estimated at around $102M, and I think we'll add payroll from here. Again, that's just a guess. No one outside of the front office knows for sure.  

[JefferyLeonard]

Here's the problem. There are a number of posters here, who if the Brewers now turn around and sign someone to a 1 year, $17 mill a year deal, will proudly proclaim "see, they added to the payroll and made a significant signing". Yeah, no. No one year deal is "significant". In order for me to be convinced they are still in "going for it" mode, would be by signing a big bat to a multi year deal, AND resign at least one of Woody, Burnes, Peralta.

[BlightyBrew]

2 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Here's the problem. There are a number of posters here, who if the Brewers now turn around and sign someone to a 1 year, $17 mill a year deal, will proudly proclaim "see, they added to the payroll and made a significant signing". Yeah, no. No one year deal is "significant". In order for me to be convinced they are still in "going for it" mode, would be by signing a big bat to a multi year deal, AND resign at least one of Woody, Burnes, Peralta.

100% percent.

[StearnsFTW]

1 hour ago, JefferyLeonard said:

This was a salary dump, plain and simple.

 

 

If you want to look at it as simplistically as possible, yes.

[StearnsFTW]

10 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Here's the problem. There are a number of posters here, who if the Brewers now turn around and sign someone to a 1 year, $17 mill a year deal, will proudly proclaim "see, they added to the payroll and made a significant signing". Yeah, no. No one year deal is "significant". In order for me to be convinced they are still in "going for it" mode, would be by signing a big bat to a multi year deal, AND resign at least one of Woody, Burnes, Peralta.

So you live in a fantasy land where the Brewers' payroll is $50MM higher than it actually is.

 

Got it.

 

[BlightyBrew]

2 minutes ago, StearnsFTW said:

If you want to look at it as simplistically as possible, yes.

Truth usually is simple.  

[Fear The Chorizo]

AND resign at least one of Woody, Burnes, Peralta.

The Brewers have club options to retain Peralta through his age 30 season in 2026, I believe, based on the contract extension they've already got him signed for. 

The Brewers' current upper farm system strength is OFs who all appear to have earned their shot at consistent MLB playing time.  Trading Renfroe for pitching help can be both a salary dump AND a way to get their young outfielders consistent playing time.  Given the payroll constraints this organization has to operate under, they needed to shed salary simply to afford arbitration raises to some of the other core pitching and this is a way to do it.  

[sveumrules]

5 hours ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

We are talking about Hunter Renfroe here not Mike Trout. 

Thinking the Angels might have acquired Renfroe to get Trout extra PAs with some jersey switching shenanigans.

[Brewcrew82]

3 minutes ago, BlightyBrew said:

Truth usually is simple.  

Not really. It's usually somewhere in between two extremes.

[BlightyBrew]

3 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Not really. It's usually somewhere in between two extremes.

It is.  Most things are simple.  It's whether or not you choose to accept those things or wish those things not to be true is where the grey area comes in.

[Redd Vencher]

2 hours ago, clancyphile said:

To be frank, the Brewers did seem to fall short with a LOT of fundamentals in the offense, How many Ks with RISP and less than 2 out have we seen? Far too many for a consistent offense.

Heck, we could even be teaching those fundamentals to the guys who focus on the home runs - give them an extra skill that other teams have to at least think about...

The Brewers were 6th in the majors in 4+ and 5+ run games and T-9th fewest times held to 2 runs or less. They were one of the more consistent offenses in baseball last year. Their wRC+ w/RISP was 6th in the majors. I believe their wRC+ in High Leverage situations was also 6th in the majors. They were one of the more consistent offenses in baseball last year. This fetishization of a certain style of baseball just does not reflect reality.

[Brewcrew82]

3 minutes ago, BlightyBrew said:

It is.  Most things are simple.  It's whether or not you choose to accept those things or wish those things not to be true is where the grey area comes in.

Maybe in your world. But where I come from, namely, reality, that isn't even close to the case.

[monty57]

5 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Here's the problem. There are a number of posters here, who if the Brewers now turn around and sign someone to a 1 year, $17 mill a year deal, will proudly proclaim "see, they added to the payroll and made a significant signing". Yeah, no. No one year deal is "significant". In order for me to be convinced they are still in "going for it" mode, would be by signing a big bat to a multi year deal, AND resign at least one of Woody, Burnes, Peralta.

That's just not responsible. You don't have any idea how much money they have to spend, but you want them to spend even if it would put the team in a bad financial situation? 

Attanasio has made it very clear for years (since he hired Stearns) that the Brewers are not in "going for it" mode. Rather, they are trying to maintain sustainable success. With the significant financial disadvantage the MLB puts smaller-market teams in, they cannot be irresponsible with their finances. 

By the way, a one-year $17M deal would definitely be meaningful, because that would be akin to the Grandal deal we did a few years ago. It would be a star player signing a one-year "prove it" deal, and I'd be pretty excited to see who we'd get on that deal. 

It's the crappy one-year $8.5M McCutchen-type deals I'm worried about. We'd probably be better off just looking at in-house options in that case.

[UpandIn]

3 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

2021 OPS+ =114; 2022 OPS+ = 122

Either way, the two seasons were nearly identical and selling him at his peak was the point.... 

We went to one of the WORST farm systems and traded for 3 pitchers, the best of which was their 26th ranked prospect.

I don't feel like that's the type of player you have to trade vs risk losing for nothing. That his value as a left handed bat who can hit righties would have been more valuable on this team. 

But maybe the Brewers surprise me and re-sign Burnes or sign Contreras or Abreu and then I'll be fine with it. This move while keeping Wong when there's interest in him...just doesn't make sense to me. 

[Robocaller]

12 hours ago, brewcrewdue80 said:

So you know 2 of them have already played in the ML.  

the operative word was "career." None of them have had a ML career.   The minimum I'd consider a career would be over 3 years of service time, and that is probably too generous.
They got time in the majors for one of the worst-run teams in MLB.

 

[Robocaller]

3 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Of course, they'll experience at least some struggles. That's just the reality of major league baseball. 

However, the style of baseball they play is far more conducive to consistent offense than what we've seen over the last few years. Rather than being focused on hitting home runs to score, these guys have demonstrated a proven ability to get on base at a high level throughout their minor league careers, and once on base, possess the game-changing speed to take extra bases and manufacture increased runs. 

I don't get why you assume they'll be consistently bad. Sal Frelick, for example, possesses a virtually identical skillset to Steven Kwan, who hit .298 and accumulated over 5.0 WAR setting the table for Cleveland's division winning lineup this season. 

I'm willing to bet analytics would  suggest otherwise. A HR is the best thing you can do at the plate. 
I didn't say they would be consistently bad; what I said is if they're consistently anything, they'd be consistently bad. I'd expect inconsistency from rookies.

Added in edit:

Did you know that Renfroe never had a monthly OPS under .740 during 2022?  If we wanted consistency, we traded it away.

[UpandIn]

24 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Here's the problem. There are a number of posters here, who if the Brewers now turn around and sign someone to a 1 year, $17 mill a year deal, will proudly proclaim "see, they added to the payroll and made a significant signing". Yeah, no. No one year deal is "significant". In order for me to be convinced they are still in "going for it" mode, would be by signing a big bat to a multi year deal, AND resign at least one of Woody, Burnes, Peralta.

By this logic, the Twins signing Carlos Correa last year was not a "significant signing."

Who cares if they sign someone for 1/17?

If they were able to....somehow sign Contreras for 1/17, THAT is a "significant" signing. So yeah, a big one year deal can absolutely be a significant signing. 

I also want to see them sign Burnes, but I don't know how "going for it" this year would mean extending Burnes through further years. 

[Thurston Fluff]

15 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Here's the problem. There are a number of posters here, who if the Brewers now turn around and sign someone to a 1 year, $17 mill a year deal, will proudly proclaim "see, they added to the payroll and made a significant signing". Yeah, no. No one year deal is "significant". In order for me to be convinced they are still in "going for it" mode, would be by signing a big bat to a multi year deal, AND resign at least one of Woody, Burnes, Peralta.

They signed Yelich to a long term deal when he was the biggest bat in baseball. They signed Yasmani Grandal when he was one of the best catchers in baseball for one year. Which approach worked better for the Brewers? There's more than one way to go for it but only one can hurt future.

[Robocaller]

I really don't get all the spin on this trade, which seems to be coming from people whose jobs depend on making it seem like management is making good decisions.

It makes us worse now, with very limited future upside from the players we acquired. I don't see how anyone can come to a different conclusion. The only potential benefit is giving playing time to a rookie, and that's a dice roll about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[monty57]

12 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

AND resign at least one of Woody, Burnes, Peralta.

The Brewers have club options to retain Peralta through his age 30 season in 2026, I believe, based on the contract extension they've already got him signed for. 

The Brewers' current upper farm system strength is OFs who all appear to have earned their shot at consistent MLB playing time.  Trading Renfroe for pitching help can be both a salary dump AND a way to get their young outfielders consistent playing time.  Given the payroll constraints this organization has to operate under, they needed to shed salary simply to afford arbitration raises to some of the other core pitching and this is a way to do it.  

Hopefully, this deal saves more money than just the expected $11M for Renfroe. 

Without pre-arby options, the Brewers would likely have to go out and sign some bullpen arms for a couple million dollars each. I'd guess that the Brewers are looking for two of the guys we got to break camp on the 26-man roster, with the third guy sitting in the minors as "injury insurance." They may only be in the "Suter role" and middle relief, but they're still roster spots that have to be paid. 

Let's say we have a $110-120M payroll this year. We have to have 26 players on the roster, so that's around $4.2-$4.6M per roster spot. Every guy on the roster that's paid league minimum means that we can pay more for the other spots.

Plus, they have years of team control, so if we are looking at extending someone, we now have additional cheap options for the 26-man that could allow us to have extra payroll in future years as well. Budgets are boring, but they're pretty important.