Robert Murray on Brewers and CC

[markedman5]

Or they could have adjusted it when he got promoted.

[MrTPlush]

1 hour ago, markedman5 said:

Or they could have adjusted it when he got promoted.

He was extended when he was promoted to General Manager. I looked at an article this morning from back then and Attanasio labeled it “long term”. I couldn’t find out where it was rumored to be 2023…I recall it being said, I just couldn’t find the source of it.

[MrTPlush]

Corbin Burnes take on Counsell:

“He hasn’t tipped his hand. I would find it difficult for him to leave and go somewhere else. Does he take a couple years off to spend time with his family? That is definitely a possibility. Wouldn’t count that out.

“I think if talks keep going long enough there is that possibility that a team comes and offers some stupid number. But I think in the end he takes that number and if the Brewers can match it or at least get close, I think he goes back to Milwaukee.”

“Just because that’s where he’s been, that’s what he knows…he’s a Brewer down to his core. If I was a GM or an owner, that’s the guy I want running the team. We’ll see. I think he’s in kinda the best spot you can be as a manager.”

Burnes thinks Counsell might just be using this offseason as negotiating power...which is pretty plausible take. The only way for him to get a big raise (that he arguably deserves) is by threatening the possibility of leaving. Of course, I have a hard time seeing either side taking this all the way to his contract expiring if both mutually 100% wanted him back...so certainly the desire to leave or take a break must be a strong possibility too.

[jerichoholicninja]

There was an article a couple weeks ago about how little managers are paid. It said that Counsell intend's to "reset the market" for managers. If there's any truth to that he's not sticking around Milwaukee.

[torts]

4 minutes ago, jerichoholicninja said:

There was an article a couple weeks ago about how little managers are paid. It said that Counsell intend's to "reset the market" for managers. If there's any truth to that he's not sticking around Milwaukee.

why?  manager salaries dont impact salary caps for the penalties.

[jerichoholicninja]

8 minutes ago, torts said:

why?  manager salaries dont impact salary caps for the penalties.

The Brewers still have a budget. If Craig really wants to go to the highest bidder just about any other organization can add another half million or so to whatever the Brewers offered and not think twice about it.

[Brewcrew82]

20 minutes ago, jerichoholicninja said:

The Brewers still have a budget. If Craig really wants to go to the highest bidder just about any other organization can add another half million or so to whatever the Brewers offered and not think twice about it.

But there's also reports out there that he would choose to stay with the Brewers if it was only like a half a million difference...

[DHonks]

If not CC, I could see Murphy, Erickson, or others with connections.  I also wonder if Joe Madden is interested.

[MrTPlush]

1 hour ago, jerichoholicninja said:

There was an article a couple weeks ago about how little managers are paid. It said that Counsell intend's to "reset the market" for managers. If there's any truth to that he's not sticking around Milwaukee.

He isn’t resetting the market. He likely is going to get $6mil or $7mil max…which is the top of what guy are currently being paid. Since he is considered one of the best in the game…he is simply getting what he should.

Resetting the market would be getting $10mil+…I think pigs will fly before that happen.

[homer]

48 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

But there's also reports out there that he would choose to stay with the Brewers if it was only like a half a million difference...

Yeah if he does want to reset the market I'm guessing he's probably gonna get something like 8 - 10 million (estimate based on the 6 million the top guy makes now). If he wants to bolt for an extra 5% salary go ahead but it'd probably have to be a lot more than that.

[DHonks]

Given the different costs of living, he'd have to get offered probably 20-30% more to make moving to New York City worth it.  I've always wondered how heavily agents factor this in.  

[nate82]

11 hours ago, DHonks said:

Given the different costs of living, he'd have to get offered probably 20-30% more to make moving to New York City worth it.  I've always wondered how heavily agents factor this in.  

They probably bring it up but for players it is more the MLBPA saying take the bigger deal regardless of tax implications.  It is all about getting a bigger contract so next year’s FA can get a bigger deal.

This is probably also what CC is thinking to get paid the highest amount so more managers are paid more.  Really managers are paid a lot and all of the other coaches are paid very little comparatively speaking.  For example I believe the average for hitting coaches is about 50-60k.  Bullpen coaches get about the same maybe a bit lower.  Pitching coaches tend to get a little bit more.  The bench coach get a bit more than hitting coaches and less than pitching coaches.

These are all estimated as teams generally don’t release coaching salaries.

[SeaBass]

The reason managers make "so little" (as if being paid even $17.5M total over 5 seasons is tiny) is because there are always candidates ready to take the job for even less money and be nearly as successful as the guy they replace. There's a difference in the gap between a HOF manager vs. replacement and a HOF player vs. replacement. The replacement manager is never going to be as far off as the player. Even if the new guy doesn't work out it's easier to move on and try the next when the buy out isn't as high.

Counsell deserves a raise but if some team wants to throw $10 million per year at him (which is beyond crazy when you consider that's POBO/GM type money) then congrats and I wish him well,. If I'm the Brewers I top out at $6 or $6.5 million, matching the pay for top managers, and say take it or leave it and I truly wonder if they'd even go that high.

[MrTPlush]

16 hours ago, SeaBass said:

Counsell deserves a raise but if some team wants to throw $10 million per year at him (which is beyond crazy when you consider that's POBO/GM type money) then congrats and I wish him well,. If I'm the Brewers I top out at $6 or $6.5 million, matching the pay for top managers, and say take it or leave it and I truly wonder if they'd even go that high.

I question if the Mets would even go that high. Stearn's is a big analytics guy. Analytics would probably say managers are more or less pretty interchangeable...don't waste money on it. That is a big reason manager salaries have tanked over the years. It sounds like Cohen really isn't that invested into who Stearn's picks to bring in, so it isn't like Cohen is waving a wad of cash trying to get Counsell at all costs. 

 

[True Blue Brew Crew]

OR maybe Stears sees that Counsell owns the best record of any manager in MLB history in 1 run games and decides he vastly underpaid no matter what the penny equivalent a record breaking salary amounts to for Cohen. Why would Stearns even calculate the dollar aspect of it? Manager salary doesn't even factor into team payroll and tax. Finding an edge at manager would be free. 

Counsell is 212-161 as a manager in 1 run games (+51) which over 9 seasons means about 5.67 wins over .500 per season. An analytics person might equate that into a similar calculation to WAR (wins above replacement) figuring that Counsell is worth 5.5 wins above a typical manager. If an analytics person chooses to look at Counsell in that light, he'd be vastly underpaid even if he becomes the highest paid manager in the game.

Of course not everyone will agree to weigh things that way, but when it's just the owner's money and doesn't affect the team payroll or tax, why not look for that statistical edge at manager? Almost seems silly to suggest that an analytics person wouldn't apply the same approach to everything, including and even especially manager.

[SF70]

21 minutes ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

OR maybe Stears sees that Counsell owns the best record of any manager in MLB history in 1 run games and decides he vastly underpaid no matter what the penny equivalent a record breaking salary amounts to for Cohen. Why would Stearns even calculate the dollar aspect of it? Manager salary doesn't even factor into team payroll and tax. Finding an edge at manager would be free. 

Counsell is 212-161 as a manager in 1 run games (+51) which over 9 seasons means about 5.67 wins over .500 per season. An analytics person might equate that into a similar calculation to WAR (wins above replacement) figuring that Counsell is worth 5.5 wins above a typical manager. If an analytics person chooses to look at Counsell in that light, he'd be vastly underpaid even if he becomes the highest paid manager in the game.

Of course not everyone will agree to weigh things that way, but when it's just the owner's money and doesn't affect the team payroll or tax, why not look for that statistical edge at manager? Almost seems silly to suggest that an analytics person wouldn't apply the same approach to everything, including and even especially manager.

Or maybe Stearns thinks it was his FO the reason for the teams 1-run success with his building of superior bullpens year after year. 

Is Skip Schumacher really 20+ games over .500 great in 1-run games? Or does having Scott & co in that bullpen make it so?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

10 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Or maybe Stearns thinks it was his FO the reason for the teams 1-run success with his building of superior bullpens year after year. 

Is Skip Schumacher really 20+ games over .500 great in 1-run games? Or does having Scott & co in that bullpen make it so?

Possibly. I guess the point is that it goes against logic to assume an analytics person would completely take an unanalytic approach to choosing a manager. What's Stearns approach going to be if not analytic? Who gives the best pregame speeches?

Counsell is already well known to be very analytic and statistics driven, so he's already got a leg up there in matched approach. The next logical step for a decision maker like Stearns is running analysis at who does it best. And by one measure (1 run games) Counsell is the best ever at it.

[Jopal78]

On 10/15/2023 at 1:02 AM, DHonks said:

Given the different costs of living, he'd have to get offered probably 20-30% more to make moving to New York City worth it.  I've always wondered how heavily agents factor this in.  

5 million dollars a year surely goes farther in Wisconsin than New York City, but come on Counsell made 20+ million dollars just as a player before adding millions more as a manager, he can live comfortably in any city in the world. 
 

 

[SF70]

1 hour ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

Possibly. I guess the point is that it goes against logic to assume an analytics person would completely take an unanalytic approach to choosing a manager. What's Stearns approach going to be if not analytic? Who gives the best pregame speeches?

Counsell is already well known to be very analytic and statistics driven, so he's already got a leg up there in matched approach. The next logical step for a decision maker like Stearns is running analysis at who does it best. And by one measure (1 run games) Counsell is the best ever at it.

I think it will be more about the people moving skills of Counsell than anything else. He has few peers in that realm, imo, and that’s far and away the most important attribute a manager can have.

 

[MrTPlush]

3 hours ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

OR maybe Stears sees that Counsell owns the best record of any manager in MLB history in 1 run games and decides he vastly underpaid no matter what the penny equivalent a record breaking salary amounts to for Cohen. Why would Stearns even calculate the dollar aspect of it? Manager salary doesn't even factor into team payroll and tax. Finding an edge at manager would be free. 

Counsell is 212-161 as a manager in 1 run games (+51) which over 9 seasons means about 5.67 wins over .500 per season. An analytics person might equate that into a similar calculation to WAR (wins above replacement) figuring that Counsell is worth 5.5 wins above a typical manager. If an analytics person chooses to look at Counsell in that light, he'd be vastly underpaid even if he becomes the highest paid manager in the game.

Of course not everyone will agree to weigh things that way, but when it's just the owner's money and doesn't affect the team payroll or tax, why not look for that statistical edge at manager? Almost seems silly to suggest that an analytics person wouldn't apply the same approach to everything, including and even especially manager.

Money is money. You aren't spending $10mil a year for results that a different guy could do for $3.5mil. It just doesn't work the way you are inferring, at least up to this point. If that was the case large markets would have already tripped over each other to pay some guy a crazy amount. Yet salaries continue to tank as teams realize these managers are mostly puppets. Bruce Bochy is barely on a Top 10 payroll team and he actually has proven success. 

It is always possible Stearns asks Cohen to just toss unlimited money to get Counsell, but I don't know, maybe Stearns wants to find a guy that hasn't been a proven leader of postseason choke jobs on a yearly basis. Usually, it isn't hard to spend your way into the postseason. The hard part is usually winning when you actually get there.

His record in one run games is a direct correlation to his bullpens he has had...notably his closer. The guy had the NL reliever of the year four years in a row (Williams has a strong chance to win it this year). A stretch both of the guys that made up those four awards pitched back-to-back. He basically has never experienced a year where he didn't have a NL Reliever of the year candidate. 

[RWeeksFan23]

On 10/17/2023 at 9:07 AM, MrTPlush said:

Money is money. You aren't spending $10mil a year for results that a different guy could do for $3.5mil. It just doesn't work the way you are inferring, at least up to this point. If that was the case large markets would have already tripped over each other to pay some guy a crazy amount. Yet salaries continue to tank as teams realize these managers are mostly puppets. Bruce Bochy is barely on a Top 10 payroll team and he actually has proven success. 

It is always possible Stearns asks Cohen to just toss unlimited money to get Counsell, but I don't know, maybe Stearns wants to find a guy that hasn't been a proven leader of postseason choke jobs on a yearly basis. Usually, it isn't hard to spend your way into the postseason. The hard part is usually winning when you actually get there.

His record in one run games is a direct correlation to his bullpens he has had...notably his closer. The guy had the NL reliever of the year four years in a row (Williams has a strong chance to win it this year). A stretch both of the guys that made up those four awards pitched back-to-back. He basically has never experienced a year where he didn't have a NL Reliever of the year candidate. 

Counsell isn't a 'proven leader of postseason choke jobs'.

Each season is it's own entity and Counsell has had little to nothing to do with the postseason defeats.

MLB playoffs is random. It's hard to win championships, in any sport!

[Underachiever]

If Counsell had better offenses, he wouldn't play in as many one-run games, so his record in those games wouldn't be as good, so he'd be a worse manager, which means the Brewers could afford him, but why would they want him if he isn't that good?

[MrTPlush]

1 hour ago, Underachiever said:

If Counsell had better offenses, he wouldn't play in as many one-run games, so his record in those games wouldn't be as good, so he'd be a worse manager, which means the Brewers could afford him, but why would they want him if he isn't that good?

That makes no sense. His winning percentage would be no different if a bunch of those games the offense scored more. They wouldn't be wins or losses. It could even be even better because the bullpen might be used less if the offense kept bigger leads. 

[MrTPlush]

16 hours ago, RWeeksFan23 said:

Counsell isn't a 'proven leader of postseason choke jobs'.

Each season is it's own entity and Counsell has had little to nothing to do with the postseason defeats.

MLB playoffs is random. It's hard to win championships, in any sport!

I mean, one could use hindsight and make a mighty list of questionable decisions Counsell has made over the years. Of course some of those are serious hingsight and all of them we don't know what the alternative would have resulted in. It is impossible to know to what extent he has hurt the Brewers in the postseason. 

The reality is, he is the leader and the Brewers have been embarrassing in the postseason. Mostly in cases where they were the favorite or at least an even opponent. Why does he get no blame in the postseason but gets all the praise for the regular season. Postseason is random...to some extent, yes.

[Underachiever]

5 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

That makes no sense. His winning percentage would be no different if a bunch of those games the offense scored more. They wouldn't be wins or losses. It could even be even better because the bullpen might be used less if the offense kept bigger leads. 

Sarcasm. My post was complete sarcasm. Not meant to make sense. An earlier post said his record wouldn't be as good in one-run games if his bullpen wasn't as good. That's the same as me saying his record in one-run games wouldn't be as good if they scored more runs and played fewer one-run games.