Wellness Check

[BrewerFan]

6 minutes ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

I think the emerging OF talent is arguably the biggest one, but as I said several posts ago, they'd need to find a suitable trade partner & at the end of the day It's more unlikely than likely. Wouldn't do it simply to jettison the contract, which means getting a sufficient amount of talent, which means it's probably a non-starter. Giants make the most sense, theoretically.

Sure...I suppose that's what started the conversation. The idea that you could put Chourio, Frelick and then Mitchell and Wiemer in the OF. Perkins and Taylor are also both look like adequate 4th OFers as well. 

 

This is clearly unlikely to happen and of course it's speculative, but that's the entire point of this forum. It's not like anyone here is dictating the Brewers roster decisions. If the Brewers could walk away from Yelich and his deal at this point, at a time when they're moving on from Burnes, Adames...likely Woodruff and Williams in the next couple years, it'd make sense to. 

 

[Jim French Stepstool]

1 minute ago, wiguy94 said:

The Brewers have 4 good OF prospects. The likelihood all 4 hit is incredibly low and in the crazy occurrence it does happen then there's always moving Yelich to 1B/DH. Brewers have basically no long term money outside of Yelich. There's no need to get rid of his contract. Brewers had a horrible offense this year and people are talking about trading 1 of our 2 good bats?? Are we trying to get substantially worse?

I said it's probably the "best" reason to do so, if they did. Not advocating shopping the guy.

"Sufficient amount of talent" means different things to different peeps. I'm the guy who regularly turns thumbs down on most trade rumors b/c I think the cost is too high or the return too low. I doubt SF (or anyone else) meets what I would deem worth considering. 

[BrewerFan]

Just now, wiguy94 said:

Look at the Brewers contracts over the next 5 years. We have literally ZERO need to get off Yelich's contract. None. Nada. Zilch. By the time our prospects get expensive in their final 2 years of Arb Yelich would be off the books. We aren't the Rays. We don't run bottom of the barrel payrolls. Just because they made a trade doesn't mean the Brewers will.

I was refuting the idea that his value was so low the Giants wouldn't want to take the contract on by showing you an example of another player at age 32 who had nearly identical offensive production and they traded for him. 

It's not a 1 for 1 analogy, but it's about as close as you can get. 

And I'm not sure why you're jumping in here and saying they don't HAVE to make this trade after I literally said that exact same thing.

I'd rather see them use their payroll on players between 20-30 moving forward. By the time they start to get expensive and into the 2nd year of arbitration, you're talking about trading him. So if Chourio was an Acuna Jr, this is the year they'd be moving off him most likely. 

Just because you don't have any other bad outstanding contracts doesn't mean you keep the one you have.

 

[BrewerFan]

8 minutes ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

I said it's probably the "best" reason to do so, if they did. Not advocating shopping the guy.

"Sufficient amount of talent" means different things to different peeps. I'm the guy who regularly turns thumbs down on most trade rumors b/c I think the cost is too high or the return too low. I doubt SF (or anyone else) meets what I would deem worth considering. 

I certainly wouldn't suggest the Brewers get a large return.  Carlos Herrera, Daniel Missak and a 3rd prospect type of trade and...if that 3rd pitcher does turn into Peralta, great, but it's really just about trading Yelich. 

And I get why that's not popular...but I think what will be popular, would be signing Chourio(for instance) very early on in his career would be very popular.

I also believe the Brewers should have tried to sign Burnes after the 2020 season(we don't know if he was offered a deal prior to that, but we know he wasn't offered one since then). 

[wiguy94]

4 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Just because you don't have any other bad outstanding contracts doesn't mean you keep the one you have.

See you’re literally calling it a bad contract again. If it’s a bad contract Brewers are just eating money to get rid of one of their best players. 
 

Sure people can talk about this but the idea of trading Yelich is as realistic to the idea of the Brewers signing Judge in FA last year. It’s never going to happen so nobody talks about it. Yet this site has been trying to trade Yelich for years. 

[Brewcrew82]

16 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

I was refuting the idea that his value was so low the Giants wouldn't want to take the contract on by showing you an example of another player at age 32 who had nearly identical offensive production and they traded for him. 

It's not a 1 for 1 analogy, but it's about as close as you can get. 

And I'm not sure why you're jumping in here and saying they don't HAVE to make this trade after I literally said that exact same thing.

I'd rather see them use their payroll on players between 20-30 moving forward. By the time they start to get expensive and into the 2nd year of arbitration, you're talking about trading him. So if Chourio was an Acuna Jr, this is the year they'd be moving off him most likely. 

Just because you don't have any other bad outstanding contracts doesn't mean you keep the one you have.

 

Except for the fact that Yelich is one of our few good hitters on a team short of good hitters. Why would we trade him when his contract isn’t going to prevent us from extending Chourio, for example. That’s what Wiguy is getting at. 

There’s zero incentive for the Brewers to trade him, in addition to the fact that Yelich holds a full no trade clause.

[TURBO]

No incentive to trade him?  How about getting out from under a contract of 150 million dollars (or whatever it is) for the next 5 years, and in turn, using that money to sign other players?

Both sides have a point, but zero incentive to trade him is not one of those points.

And yes, it is a bad contract.  Not a chance in hell that contract looks good at the end.  The dude can break at anytime and become a complete albatross.  How close are we to a 90-100 game per season guy, hitting .230 with 10 homers?  Is that worth $26 million a year?  His arm is toast, but I'm not even going to get into his defensive liability.  People keep saying just move him to 1B.  Is that even feasible?

If we got the 2023 Yelich for the next five years, then I'd say we are fine, but we all know that isn't going to happen, probably not even close.

[rickh150]

The total shake your head no is that the Brewers have NO REASON to trade him. The 100 million dollar plus savings of his contract….just insert Chourio for Yelich…would be one reason.  Ha, they could close the AmFam discussion tomorrow with this trade and the team kicking in another 100 million!  Baseball in Milwaukee for another generation til at least 2050!
And the fact that the team is as loaded in the outfield with prospects as they have ever been is another. 
And like Turbo said, that contract is not going to end well. Injuries or even just natural aging will not get this Yelich in 3 or 4 years. 
Just to clarify, I do not think this is going to happen, but there are definite reasons to have it happen that would potentially help the team long-term (not 2024).

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

See you’re literally calling it a bad contract again. If it’s a bad contract Brewers are just eating money to get rid of one of their best players. 
 

Sure people can talk about this but the idea of trading Yelich is as realistic to the idea of the Brewers signing Judge in FA last year. It’s never going to happen so nobody talks about it. Yet this site has been trying to trade Yelich for years. 

Yeah, it's a bad contract for the Brewers.

Saying it's as likely as signing Judge is...LOL...c'mon. I JUST gave you an example of the very same team taking on a 9 figure contract a couple posts ago.

 

You KNOW you don't believe what you're saying. 

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Except for the fact that Yelich is one of our few good hitters on a team short of good hitters. Why would we trade him when his contract isn’t going to prevent us from extending Chourio, for example. That’s what Wiguy is getting at. 

There’s zero incentive for the Brewers to trade him, in addition to the fact that Yelich holds a full no trade clause.

Wait...WHAAAAT! Yelich has a No Trade Clause? So he can veto the trade? No way...that's almost like being 10/5.

 

Amazing. What a fresh perspective here!

 

[Brewcrew82]

2 hours ago, rickh150 said:

The total shake your head no is that the Brewers have NO REASON to trade him. The 100 million dollar plus savings of his contract….just insert Chourio for Yelich…would be one reason.  Ha, they could close the AmFam discussion tomorrow with this trade and the team kicking in another 100 million!  Baseball in Milwaukee for another generation til at least 2050!
And the fact that the team is as loaded in the outfield with prospects as they have ever been is another. 
And like Turbo said, that contract is not going to end well. Injuries or even just natural aging will not get this Yelich in 3 or 4 years. 
Just to clarify, I do not think this is going to happen, but there are definite reasons to have it happen that would potentially help the team long-term (not 2024).

Yelich’s contract has nothing to do with AM Fam funding. 

It also has very little to do with their ability to extend Chourio because by the time Chourio’s contract would start getting expensive, Yelich will be off the books. 

Brewers aren’t going to eat salary just to get rid of Yelich’s contract when he’s producing the way he is. Especially when they have virtually nothing else the way of long-term financial commitments. 

And, of course, the full no trade clause….Never going to happen, despite how often it’s talked about on here. 

 

[rickh150]

14 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Yelich’s contract has nothing to do with AM Fam funding. 

It also has very little to do with their ability to extend Chourio because by the time Chourio’s contract would start getting expensive, Yelich will be off the books. 

Brewers aren’t going to eat salary just to get rid of Yelich’s contract when he’s producing the way he is. Especially when they have virtually nothing else the way of long-term financial commitments. 

And, of course, the full no trade clause….Never going to happen, despite how often it’s talked about on here. 

 

Buy there are reasons to deal him. Yes, of course.  There are reasons, plural. 

Eating salary? That money would ideally and obviously be used elsewhere to shore up the team. I have to say this apparently. Long term they would be set up even better without Yelich’s contract holding them back (yes) in 2026 and 2027 for other players.

And Chourio might/could/should replace Yelich’s stats in the next five seasons anyways. Not to mention the multitude of other promising  outfielders we have that can be used on the cheap for a while.

And again, I don’t think it will happen, especially if we are looking to seriously compete for the division in 2024… but it is a possibility. And if there was a time to do it, now is the time with CC, Burnes, Woodruff, Adames likely/probably being gone soon in a possible transition year. And guys are traded all the time with no trade clauses….of course.

[Brewcrew82]

3 minutes ago, rickh150 said:

Buy there are reasons to deal him. Yes, of course.  There are reasons, plural. 

Eating salary? That money would ideally and obviously be used elsewhere to shore up the team. I have to say this apparently. Long term they would be set up even better without Yelich’s contract holding them back (yes) in 2026 and 2027 for other players.

And Chourio might/could/should replace Yelich’s stats in the next five seasons anyways. Not to mention the multitude of other promising  outfielders we have that can be used on the cheap for a while.

And again, I don’t think it will happen, especially if we are looking to seriously compete for the division in 2024… but it is a possibility. And if there was a time to do it, now is the time with CC, Burnes, Woodruff, Adames likely/probably being gone soon in a possible transition year. And guys are traded all the time with no trade clauses….of course.

Are they? Because it’s actually pretty rare a guy with a full NTC such as Yelich gets traded. 

And they would most certainly have to eat some of Yelich’s salary if they would plan on getting anything back in such a deal.

Yelich’s contract isn’t preventing them from doing much of anything considering he’s effectively their only major long-term financial commitment. It’s not like we’re ever going to be major players in FA anyways. 

Just so little incentive for the Brewers to trade Yelich and unlikely to the point it’s not worth discussing. 

[TURBO]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Are they? Because it’s actually pretty rare a guy with a full NTC such as Yelich gets traded. 

And they would most certainly have to eat some of Yelich’s salary if they would plan on getting anything back in such a deal.

Yelich’s contract isn’t preventing them from doing much of anything considering he’s effectively their only major long-term financial commitment. It’s not like we’re ever going to be major players in FA anyways. 

Just so little incentive for the Brewers to trade Yelich and unlikely to the point it’s not worth discussing. 

Well, since you are stating it's pretty rare that guys with full NTC get traded, do you have stats to back that up, or are you just throwing out comments to back up your stance?  You may very well be right, but without any evidence, we don't know.

How can you say that his contract isn't preventing them from anything?  Dude is getting paid what,  1/4 or 1/5 of our entire payroll.  You don't think that freeing up 26 million per year for the next 5 years isn't going to allow them to use that money on other players?  It doesn't matter if he is our only long term commitment or not.  26 million per year for a so called small market strapped team makes all the difference in the world.  It feels like you are just arguing for arguments sake on this one.

There is tremendous incentive to trade him, probably not going to happen, but saying there is no incentive is just plain having blinders on.

[Brewcrew82]

4 hours ago, TURBO said:

Well, since you are stating it's pretty rare that guys with full NTC get traded, do you have stats to back that up, or are you just throwing out comments to back up your stance?  You may very well be right, but without any evidence, we don't know.

How can you say that his contract isn't preventing them from anything?  Dude is getting paid what,  1/4 or 1/5 of our entire payroll.  You don't think that freeing up 26 million per year for the next 5 years isn't going to allow them to use that money on other players?  It doesn't matter if he is our only long term commitment or not.  26 million per year for a so called small market strapped team makes all the difference in the world.  It feels like you are just arguing for arguments sake on this one.

There is tremendous incentive to trade him, probably not going to happen, but saying there is no incentive is just plain having blinders on.

I do have stats, actually...

2023: 2 (Scherzer and Verlander, who said he'd only waive his NTC for one team, the Astros)

2022: 0

2021: 1 (Scherzer again)

2020: 0

2019: 0

And this doesn't even include all of the deals that were nixed because of a NTC and or are never even pursued because of the presence of a NTC. Bottom line: it's rare.

As for Yelich's $26 million, it's definitely less than 1/4 or 1/5 of the payroll. Furthermore, it's an opportunity cost-type situation. If the Brewers traded Yelich to rid themselves of his contract, they'd still have to find a way to replace his production, which this year was worth 4.1 fWAR, second best on the team. The cost for that sort of production would be at least $20 million if they tried to plug the resulting hole in FA, in which case they'd save very little to no money to upgrade the rest of the roster. We have young OF talent that we could go to instead, but that's still asking a lot for them to replicate Yelich's production and could ultimately negate any upgrades made to the rest of the roster due to the cost savings from a trade. 

Moreover, the Brewers would almost certainly have to eat a significant portion of Yelich's salary in any trade.

As I've been saying, the incentive is relatively low for the Brewers to trade Yelich at this point and his possession of a full NTC renders it improbable to where there's little point in discussing it. 

[rickh150]

Tough to say rare when it’s happened twice in just the last few months…it can happen and does happen. Throw in Lance Lynn to the Dodgers. It was a limited list no trade clause, but Dodgers were on it.  It’s not an absolute barrier if let’s say the team trades top two pitchers and manager walks… he may even want to go elsewhere or nearer to home if that happens. 

And why would the Brewers have to eat any of the contract if it isn’t a bad contract?  If it’s a bad contract, then yeah, the team would have to throw in money to get a fair return. If it is a good contract like some believe, then they wouldn’t. You see the double talk.

And the Brewers wouldn’t be looking to add a 20 million dollar outfield FA answer to trading Yelich. They have plenty of OF options on the cheap, including one of the best outfield prospects in baseball projected to play in 2024 and other players looking for playing time too. The short term production would be sacrificed. Yet, if we are retooling and transitioning this year, it makes total cents to be open to this possibility of trading Yelich.  The money could be used on other positions or to extend current young players (Contreras).

The amazing thing in all this is that some seem to believe the last years of Yelich in Milwaukee (26-28) would be good bang for the buck.

[Brewcrew82]

2 hours ago, rickh150 said:

Tough to say rare when it’s happened twice in just the last few months…it can happen and does happen. Throw in Lance Lynn to the Dodgers. It was a limited list no trade clause, but Dodgers were on it.  It’s not an absolute barrier if let’s say the team trades top two pitchers and manager walks… he may even want to go elsewhere or nearer to home if that happens. 

And why would the Brewers have to eat any of the contract if it isn’t a bad contract?  If it’s a bad contract, then yeah, the team would have to throw in money to get a fair return. If it is a good contract like some believe, then they wouldn’t. You see the double talk.

And the Brewers wouldn’t be looking to add a 20 million dollar outfield FA answer to trading Yelich. They have plenty of OF options on the cheap, including one of the best outfield prospects in baseball projected to play in 2024 and other players looking for playing time too. The short term production would be sacrificed. Yet, if we are retooling and transitioning this year, it makes total cents to be open to this possibility of trading Yelich.  The money could be used on other positions or to extend current young players (Contreras).

The amazing thing in all this is that some seem to believe the last years of Yelich in Milwaukee (26-28) would be good bang for the buck.

You're still ignoring the fact that the Brewers would almost certainly have to eat a significant chunk of Yelich's salary in any trade....That eats away at your "savings". 

[Robocaller]

On 10/8/2023 at 2:26 AM, Brewcrew82 said:

You're still ignoring the fact that the Brewers would almost certainly have to eat a significant chunk of Yelich's salary in any trade....That eats away at your "savings". 

I don't think they'd need to pay any of his salary if they traded him to the right team.

The bigger question is why would you trade him when he was one of only two players who hit well for a whole season?

[CheezWizHed]

On 10/9/2023 at 3:10 AM, Robocaller said:

I don't think they'd need to pay any of his salary if they traded him to the right team.

The bigger question is why would you trade him when he was one of only two players who hit well for a whole season?

The bigger, bigger question is what is the probability of next year being a division championship year? 

• Our strong SP window is closed (Burnes being traded, Woody being injured)
• Our offense needs an overhaul
• Our current strength is in our youth.

So if you think that last season was probably Yelich's future peak (i.e. all downhill from there)

• and you want to reboot and build around our young core.... 
  • and you have an opportunity to move him for future financial flexibility...

That is why you trade him. 

[dlk9s]

https://twitter.com/InternetH0F/status/1711825392955277517

[torts]

On 10/7/2023 at 10:52 PM, Brewcrew82 said:

 ...to where there's little point in discussing it. 

You forget where you're at, little-point-in-discussing topics are the speciality here!

[TURBO]

On 10/8/2023 at 2:26 AM, Brewcrew82 said:

You're still ignoring the fact that the Brewers would almost certainly have to eat a significant chunk of Yelich's salary in any trade....That eats away at your "savings". 

Says who?  That is pure speculation on your part.  Find the right deal, and we pay little to none of his salary.

[owbc]

28 minutes ago, TURBO said:

Says who?  That is pure speculation on your part.  Find the right deal, and we pay little to none of his salary.

Then we would be giving him away to the competition for essentially nothing -- a straight up salary dump. 

[Brewcrew82]

4 hours ago, TURBO said:

Says who?  That is pure speculation on your part.  Find the right deal, and we pay little to none of his salary.

No it’s literally not. It’s still a negative value deal per BTV.  

You also don’t have to look any further than the Rockies eating Arenado’s salary a few years back. 

“Find the right deal” lol.  Right after we find the pot of gold at the other end of the rainbow.

[Robocaller]

On 10/10/2023 at 11:42 AM, CheezWizHed said:

The bigger, bigger question is what is the probability of next year being a division championship year? 

• Our strong SP window is closed (Burnes being traded, Woody being injured)
• Our offense needs an overhaul
• Our current strength is in our youth.

So if you think that last season was probably Yelich's future peak (i.e. all downhill from there)

• and you want to reboot and build around our young core.... 
  • and you have an opportunity to move him for future financial flexibility...

That is why you trade him. 

Obviously the chance of getting back to the playoffs will largely be dependent on the trades/signings they make. 
I don't know how aggressively they'll seek to trade our players in their last year of arbitration, or how badly Woodruff is injured. But yeah, if Woodruff will miss most of the season, and we trade Burnes and Adames and don't get back MLB-ready talent, there's no reason to keep Yelich, if they are offered anything close to being worthwhile.
I just don't know how things will sort out.