Robert Murray on Brewers and CC

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

Like who? Who was worth the extra $3 million that only the Brewers would have gotten had they ponied the money up?

Dude...there are a ton of players we could have kept, signed, but didn't want to pay 3M more for. Corey Knebel after he went through TJ on the Brewers dime, then came back and threw really well. 

We had...what, 5-6 players making 5M or more last year. We had a 1B who hit 41 HRs, put up a ~.830 OPS and we non-tendered him because his salary was projected to go from 2.5 to 5.5 and then he ended up signing for 3.5.

THAT was another purely financial decision. 

If you asked what stars we've lost, I don't know, but 3 million MORE? Yeah, we've lost players for that "little" amount. 

I'm guessing most we'll never know about. 3M is not the insignificant figure you're suggesting. Especially when it's ANOTHER 3M to some hypothetical player and you're claiming that we've never lost a player over a number that small...

 

I'd actually imagine, particularly on the fringes, we've lost several players in this manner(Manny Pina for example). 

[BrewerFan]

3 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

This is really long and hard to follow, but two things:

1) They already tried buying their way to a title like you're proposing, and it backfired on them. They're lucky they were able to get out of the Correa deal. They traded Scherzer and Verlander because they weren't planning on contending in 2024, and Cohen hired Stearns to build something more sustainable like the Dodgers. That will take time. 

2) Brewers are a consensus top 5/3 farm system. Mets are on the outside fringes of the top 10, if that. That difference matters. 

It's long. I don't know what's hard to follow. You're saying they're further away from the Brewers/Guardians and can't spend their way. I just outlined how they could easily spend their way there and wouldn't be less competitive than either team.

1-No, they did not backfire on them;
They won 101 games two years ago and lost 2-1 to the Pads.
They were besieged by injuries this year, almost from the start of the year. 

Saying it "backfired on them," would be like saying signing Counsell backfired on us. Why? Because they didn't win a WS?

It's been 2 years and again, won 100+ in one of them.

2-So what? The Brewers don't have Woodruff, they're likely trading Burnes...oh, and the Mets can spend ~350M on their payroll and sign any 3-4 FAs they want(literally). 

That difference matters a bit more in how quickly you're going to build a contender. The Mets reshuffled last year, they cut some salary, added some prospects and made a huge jump.

The Brewers having the #3-5 farm system is not the end all you are arguing. The nearly unlimited financial resources are at LEAST as big of a factor that's being overlooked because we want Counsell back. 

 

If he wants the best chance to win a Title, he won't be back in Milwaukee(and no, it won't made what he said about winning a title the last thing he needs to do ring hollow).

I still believe he'll be back, I just think your logic is...flawed or maybe wishful thinking. I don't know which.

[Brewcrew82]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

It's long. I don't know what's hard to follow. You're saying they're further away from the Brewers/Guardians and can't spend their way. I just outlined how they could easily spend their way there and wouldn't be less competitive than either team.

1-No, they did not backfire on them;
They won 101 games two years ago and lost 2-1 to the Pads.
They were besieged by injuries this year, almost from the start of the year. 

Saying it "backfired on them," would be like saying signing Counsell backfired on us. Why? Because they didn't win a WS?

It's been 2 years and again, won 100+ in one of them.

2-So what? The Brewers don't have Woodruff, they're likely trading Burnes...oh, and the Mets can spend ~350M on their payroll and sign any 3-4 FAs they want(literally). 

That difference matters a bit more in how quickly you're going to build a contender. The Mets reshuffled last year, they cut some salary, added some prospects and made a huge jump.

The Brewers having the #3-5 farm system is not the end all you are arguing. The nearly unlimited financial resources are at LEAST as big of a factor that's being overlooked because we want Counsell back. 

 

If he wants the best chance to win a Title, he won't be back in Milwaukee(and no, it won't made what he said about winning a title the last thing he needs to do ring hollow).

I still believe he'll be back, I just think your logic is...flawed or maybe wishful thinking. I don't know which.

They literally did the exact same thing you're proposing the past two off-seasons where they signed all of the top free agents, and it did end up backfiring on them this year especially, Their 40 year old aces predictably got injured, they received declining production from Marte, Escobar, Canha, Escobar, etc. Look at the Padres, too. Yeah, they can spend to their heart's content, but that is not a guarantor of success. 

Plus, they've already said they're not planning to contend in 2024....

Anyways, all I was saying is that, right now, the Brewers and Guardians are arguably starting from a better position organizationally due to the elite talent acquisition and development systems they already have in place and have had in place for a while now (the Brewers top 3 farm system being one of the byproducts). Stearns is just starting building the Mets'. It will take time. Spending like the Mets have the capability to do can help hasten that process and chip away at/eliminate the gap, but Stearns is also unproven when it comes to making big-dollar free agent signings. He could be Chris Young or he could also be Preller. Is that enough to make CC think that he has to take Mets job in order to win a title? I don't know. But I don't think it's the no-brainer it's being portrayed as, and for that reason, among a couple others, I suspect he comes back.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding his comments about winning a title in MKE ringing hollow in the event he ditches us for the Mets. I feel very strongly that they would.

[BrewerFan]

48 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

They literally did the exact same thing you're proposing the past two off-seasons where they signed all of the top free agents, and it did end up backfiring on them this year especially, 

They LITERALLY did NOT do the same thing I'm proposing(not even proposing, simply pointing out is plausible and would have an enormous impact on their prospects. You know how I know it's not the same thing(and the statement that it backfired on them the past TWO seasons?

50 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Their 40 year old aces predictably got injured, they received declining production from Marte, Escobar, Canha, Escobar, etc. Look at the Padres, too. Yeah, they can spend to their heart's content, but that is not a guarantor of success. 

Did I say a word about signing 40-year-old aces? Or did I talk about a 25-year-old potential ace, the greatest player we've seen play Baseball in maybe ever, and then a middle-of-the-order 3B.

Oh, and IT-DID-NOT-BACKFIRE-THE-PAST-TWO-SEASONS.

They were a 101-win team two years ago. Last year they started losing extremely important players, including one of, if not the most dominant closer in baseball.

But fine, lets use your "it backfired," logic. Every year the Brewers have ever played Baseball, including the year it was the Seattle Pilots, their moves backfired. There's no success other than winning a WS? Because 101 wins seems to do just fine. 

What's more, they took those 40-year-old aces who they signed and you're claiming I "literally" do the same thing again this year and they flipped them for multiple top prospects. 

 

54 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Plus, they've already said they're not planning to contend in 2024....

I don't believe they did, I think you're taking what a guy who got fired said when explaining to Scherzer why they were trading him and used the transition year...EITHER way, you argue that the Brewers and Guardians are teams who are more likely to win soon.

I'm saying the team that can spend 350M dollars and also has a strong farm system and is one year removed from a 101 win season is probably at least as likely...and in fact MORE likely.

But tell me, the Brewers by ALL accounts are trading Burnes.

So two teams, the Brewers will likely be trading their most valuable player, the Mets will almost certainly be in on some of the premiere talent in baseball in 2024 and even "they" said they don't "plan to contend in 2024," that still in no way supports your argument that they're CLOSER. The Brewers don't seem all that likely to contend in '24 if/when they trade Burnes. 

So not sure that was actually said and it's not a strong argument.

59 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Anyways, all I was saying is that, right now, the Brewers and Guardians are arguably starting from a better position organizationally due to the elite talent acquisition and development systems they already have in place and have had in place for a while now (the Brewers top 3 farm system being one of the byproducts). Stearns is just starting building the Mets'. It will take time.

And I'M saying the Mets added a LOT of talent at the deadline, they can spend literally 3X what the Brewers can spend and that more than makes up for the difference in the rankings of each respective farm systems.

I'd also suggest if you look at where the Brewers system ranked last year. With SO many elite young talented players in LowA/A ball, they're a system that could rise quickly. 

But again, more importantly...the fact they can add a couple hundred million in salary. 

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Spending like the Mets have the capability to do can help hasten that process and chip away at/eliminate the gap, but Stearns is also unproven when it comes to making big-dollar free agent signings. He could be Chris Young or he could also be Preller. Is that enough to make CC think that he has to take Mets job in order to win a title? I don't know. But I don't think it's the no-brainer it's being portrayed as, and for that reason, among a couple others, I suspect he comes back.

C'mon...you've been signing Stearns praises for years now(and so have I). 

But now it's the "he may struggle with TOO much money." 

Stearns was trading away his best players in advance or preparing to because he had financial restraints...and YET, he STILL took over a team everyone thought was looking at a rebuilding year, won 73 games, then 86 and then took the Brewers to Gm7 of the NLCS his 3rd year in Milwaukee. He signed big contracts...well, a big contract for the Brewers, not for the Mets. 5/85 is not a significant move for the Mets and hardly crippling.

In any event, he took over a team with 1/3rd the payroll and a significantly worse farm system and by his 3rd season, he was a game away from the World Series.

I am genuinely skeptical you believe this argument. 

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Is that enough to make CC think that he has to take Mets job in order to win a title? I don't know. But I don't think it's the no-brainer it's being portrayed as, and for that reason, among a couple others, I suspect he comes back.

No clue. I didn't argue one way or another about Counsell going to New York.

I said the claim they were so much further away then the Brewers and Guardians is silly. 

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

 

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding his comments about winning a title in MKE ringing hollow in the event he ditches us for the Mets. I feel very strongly that they would.

Yes, we will. He's given more than enough to the Brewers...and I'm not going to hold a desire to win a WS against him a few years later if he didn't end up getting it done.

Just as I didn't hold it against Molitor. 

[True Blue Brew Crew]

8 hours ago, SeaBass said:

Because you can pay someone else less to do the exact same thing and I'd rather spend money on players. Pretty simple. Managers don't have to hit a fastball, they don't strike out, they don't pitch or play defense. This idea that CC is irreplaceable is fantastically over the top dumb.

This kind of thinking deserves another Ken Macha. Problem is, then the rest of us suffer too

[SF70]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

They LITERALLY did NOT do the same thing I'm proposing(not even proposing, simply pointing out is plausible and would have an enormous impact on their prospects. You know how I know it's not the same thing(and the statement that it backfired on them the past TWO seasons?

Did I say a word about signing 40-year-old aces? Or did I talk about a 25-year-old potential ace, the greatest player we've seen play Baseball in maybe ever, and then a middle-of-the-order 3B.

Oh, and IT-DID-NOT-BACKFIRE-THE-PAST-TWO-SEASONS.

They were a 101-win team two years ago. Last year they started losing extremely important players, including one of, if not the most dominant closer in baseball.

But fine, lets use your "it backfired," logic. Every year the Brewers have ever played Baseball, including the year it was the Seattle Pilots, their moves backfired. There's no success other than winning a WS? Because 101 wins seems to do just fine. 

What's more, they took those 40-year-old aces who they signed and you're claiming I "literally" do the same thing again this year and they flipped them for multiple top prospects. 

 

I don't believe they did, I think you're taking what a guy who got fired said when explaining to Scherzer why they were trading him and used the transition year...EITHER way, you argue that the Brewers and Guardians are teams who are more likely to win soon.

I'm saying the team that can spend 350M dollars and also has a strong farm system and is one year removed from a 101 win season is probably at least as likely...and in fact MORE likely.

But tell me, the Brewers by ALL accounts are trading Burnes.

So two teams, the Brewers will likely be trading their most valuable player, the Mets will almost certainly be in on some of the premiere talent in baseball in 2024 and even "they" said they don't "plan to contend in 2024," that still in no way supports your argument that they're CLOSER. The Brewers don't seem all that likely to contend in '24 if/when they trade Burnes. 

So not sure that was actually said and it's not a strong argument.

And I'M saying the Mets added a LOT of talent at the deadline, they can spend literally 3X what the Brewers can spend and that more than makes up for the difference in the rankings of each respective farm systems.

I'd also suggest if you look at where the Brewers system ranked last year. With SO many elite young talented players in LowA/A ball, they're a system that could rise quickly. 

But again, more importantly...the fact they can add a couple hundred million in salary. 

C'mon...you've been signing Stearns praises for years now(and so have I). 

But now it's the "he may struggle with TOO much money." 

Stearns was trading away his best players in advance or preparing to because he had financial restraints...and YET, he STILL took over a team everyone thought was looking at a rebuilding year, won 73 games, then 86 and then took the Brewers to Gm7 of the NLCS his 3rd year in Milwaukee. He signed big contracts...well, a big contract for the Brewers, not for the Mets. 5/85 is not a significant move for the Mets and hardly crippling.

In any event, he took over a team with 1/3rd the payroll and a significantly worse farm system and by his 3rd season, he was a game away from the World Series.

I am genuinely skeptical you believe this argument. 

No clue. I didn't argue one way or another about Counsell going to New York.

I said the claim they were so much further away then the Brewers and Guardians is silly. 

Yes, we will. He's given more than enough to the Brewers...and I'm not going to hold a desire to win a WS against him a few years later if he didn't end up getting it done.

Just as I didn't hold it against Molitor. 

While it’s true the Mets could spend $340M+ on payroll next year if they want to  —  I don’t think they will.

I think they will reset their tax penalty threshold so they can spend again in ‘25. I don’t see Stearns wanting to deal with the penalties of blowing past the Cohen threshold for the 3rd straight year. 

[Underachiever]

11 hours ago, torts said:

Bruce bochy made $6 mil this year

And by all accounts, Dave Roberts made 6.5 million the last two years. How is $7 million "resetting the market?"

Not asking you, torts. Adding to your point.

[SeaBass]

3 hours ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

This kind of thinking deserves another Ken Macha. Problem is, then the rest of us suffer too

Right. Because an analytical front office is going to hire that type of guy.

The entire point of my stance is that worshiping at the altar of Craig Counsell is not the only way forward. What a radical idea that is apparently worthy of a good stoning by the citizenry.

[SeaBass]

19 minutes ago, Underachiever said:

And by all accounts, Dave Roberts made 6.5 million the last two years. How is $7 million "resetting the market?"

Not asking you, torts. Adding to your point.

That's two guys out of 30. One guy with 57 career playoff games won and multiple WS appearances and the other with 45 career playoff games won  and multiple WS appearances.

Now a guy with 7 career playoff games won and zero WS appearances wants to be paid more than those guys.

How is that not resetting the market?

[Brewcrew82]

5 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

They LITERALLY did NOT do the same thing I'm proposing(not even proposing, simply pointing out is plausible and would have an enormous impact on their prospects. You know how I know it's not the same thing(and the statement that it backfired on them the past TWO seasons?

Did I say a word about signing 40-year-old aces? Or did I talk about a 25-year-old potential ace, the greatest player we've seen play Baseball in maybe ever, and then a middle-of-the-order 3B.

Oh, and IT-DID-NOT-BACKFIRE-THE-PAST-TWO-SEASONS.

They were a 101-win team two years ago. Last year they started losing extremely important players, including one of, if not the most dominant closer in baseball.

But fine, lets use your "it backfired," logic. Every year the Brewers have ever played Baseball, including the year it was the Seattle Pilots, their moves backfired. There's no success other than winning a WS? Because 101 wins seems to do just fine. 

What's more, they took those 40-year-old aces who they signed and you're claiming I "literally" do the same thing again this year and they flipped them for multiple top prospects. 

 

I don't believe they did, I think you're taking what a guy who got fired said when explaining to Scherzer why they were trading him and used the transition year...EITHER way, you argue that the Brewers and Guardians are teams who are more likely to win soon.

I'm saying the team that can spend 350M dollars and also has a strong farm system and is one year removed from a 101 win season is probably at least as likely...and in fact MORE likely.

But tell me, the Brewers by ALL accounts are trading Burnes.

So two teams, the Brewers will likely be trading their most valuable player, the Mets will almost certainly be in on some of the premiere talent in baseball in 2024 and even "they" said they don't "plan to contend in 2024," that still in no way supports your argument that they're CLOSER. The Brewers don't seem all that likely to contend in '24 if/when they trade Burnes. 

So not sure that was actually said and it's not a strong argument.

And I'M saying the Mets added a LOT of talent at the deadline, they can spend literally 3X what the Brewers can spend and that more than makes up for the difference in the rankings of each respective farm systems.

I'd also suggest if you look at where the Brewers system ranked last year. With SO many elite young talented players in LowA/A ball, they're a system that could rise quickly. 

But again, more importantly...the fact they can add a couple hundred million in salary. 

C'mon...you've been signing Stearns praises for years now(and so have I). 

But now it's the "he may struggle with TOO much money." 

Stearns was trading away his best players in advance or preparing to because he had financial restraints...and YET, he STILL took over a team everyone thought was looking at a rebuilding year, won 73 games, then 86 and then took the Brewers to Gm7 of the NLCS his 3rd year in Milwaukee. He signed big contracts...well, a big contract for the Brewers, not for the Mets. 5/85 is not a significant move for the Mets and hardly crippling.

In any event, he took over a team with 1/3rd the payroll and a significantly worse farm system and by his 3rd season, he was a game away from the World Series.

I am genuinely skeptical you believe this argument. 

No clue. I didn't argue one way or another about Counsell going to New York.

I said the claim they were so much further away then the Brewers and Guardians is silly. 

Yes, we will. He's given more than enough to the Brewers...and I'm not going to hold a desire to win a WS against him a few years later if he didn't end up getting it done.

Just as I didn't hold it against Molitor. 

Okay. So much I have issue with here. Including your interpretation of my argument. But I’ll let you have the last word.

[Underachiever]

24 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

That's two guys out of 30. One guy with 57 career playoff games won and multiple WS appearances and the other with 45 career playoff games won  and multiple WS appearances.

Now a guy with 7 career playoff games won and zero WS appearances wants to be paid more than those guys.

How is that not resetting the market?

I see your point. I guess I've become numb to the salary numbers in sports. The new contracts are always more than the ones before them. And at only .5 million more, it doesn't even register in my brain. 

Different sport, but to me, contracts such as Jimbo Fisher getting 10/$75m from A&M, Mel Tucker getting 10/$95 from MSU are examples. Gruden 10/$100with the Raiders. More years AND more dollars. Deshaun Watson getting 230 million guaranteed. That's a reset. If they go 10/$70 million with CC, I would say the same thing. 

[SeaBass]

21 minutes ago, Underachiever said:

I see your point. I guess I've become numb to the salary numbers in sports. The new contracts are always more than the ones before them. And at only .5 million more, it doesn't even register in my brain. 

Different sport, but to me, contracts such as Jimbo Fisher getting 10/$75m from A&M, Mel Tucker getting 10/$95 from MSU are examples. Gruden 10/$100with the Raiders. More years AND more dollars. Deshaun Watson getting 230 million guaranteed. That's a reset. If they go 10/$70 million with CC, I would say the same thing. 

Yeah and really I would put more value on a football head coach than a baseball manager. College sports really is a different beast though because they're not spending a ton of money on players like pro sports teams do. The coaches are the stars for some of these programs.

I know it seems like I'm anti-CC but I'm really not. I'm just trying to be objective about how much sense it makes to break the bank on a manager's salary while also pushing back against the idea that the Brewers should pay whatever it takes to keep him. Because people seem to fear that if he moves on the Brewers will become a failure of a team and I don't believe that for a second.

If the Brewers end up paying him more than we've even speculated on, $8 million, $9 million, even $10 million, that's fine. I do like CC, I'll be happy if he's still here. I trust the Brewers to know what they're doing either way this goes.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

2 hours ago, SeaBass said:

Right. Because an analytical front office is going to hire that type of guy.

The entire point of my stance is that worshiping at the altar of Craig Counsell is not the only way forward. What a radical idea that is apparently worthy of a good stoning by the citizenry.

Oh shoot, I missed the part where every analytical hire is a home run who outperforms projections every year and is a statistical outlier to the extreme positive in 1 run games. Just fire up the computer and crank out the next manager who is far more valuable than a middling reliever but makes less.

I'll say it again, the people who think Counsell is easy to replace deserve someone who pans out like Ken Macha. But the people who realize how likely it is that the Brewers will suffer a significant downgrade, don't deserve to relive that.

[SeaBass]

22 minutes ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

Oh shoot, I missed the part where every analytical hire is a home run who outperforms projections every year and is a statistical outlier to the extreme positive in 1 run games. Just fire up the computer and crank out the next manager who is far more valuable than a middling reliever but makes less.

I'll say it again, the people who think Counsell is easy to replace deserve someone who pans out like Ken Macha. But the people who realize how likely it is that the Brewers will suffer a significant downgrade, don't deserve to relive that.

I'm not saying he's easy to replace, merely that he is replaceable. I'm just saying at some point the price isn't worth the hire. Isn't that true of just about any job? And it's my opinion, I'm not trying to portray it as definitive fact. Just like you doom-seeing a significant downgrade is your opinion and not fact. I'm not as afraid to find out as you are.

Honestly, I don't really care about the 1 run game stat. It's cool. I'm glad they've done well in those situations, I'm not sure how much of that is the talent available and how much is CC "magic". I don't think he's following some undecipherable strategy that only he understands.

I think CC is a good leader. He's intelligent, a good communicator and a manager that players respect. He's mostly a good decision maker. Those are great qualities that make him a desirable guy to have in the role. The fact remains he's had 3 really good teams in the last 6 years and hasn't progressed to a WS. That's not all his fault either but if he's a magical being that elevates his team more than other managers elevate theirs I wish it worked better once they get to the playoffs. I'm not sure how he's achieved this level of perceived saint hood where he's become peerless in his time with some people.

Anyway, I'm done. I think I've plastered enough of my opinion here for people to know where I stand.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

20 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

I I'm just saying at some point the price isn't worth the hire.

So that's it, it all boils down to this for you - the price isn't worth it? Why the heck would you care? You're not writing the check.

[brewmann04]

any news if they have any List in case they don't retain CC?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Personally, if bringing back the most successful manager the Brewers have ever had, one universally respected as one of the best currently in the game, comes down simply to Mark Attanasio writing a check - he dang well better write the check. Otherwise sell the team to someone who will. Because far more often than not, the Brewers have had below average people in that spot.

[homer]

3 minutes ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

So that's it, it all boils down to this for you - the price isn't worth it? Why the heck would you care? You're not writing the check.

I think his argument is that an extra $5 million per year on the manager is $5 million you can't spend on a player that would provide more value. 

(I don't necessarily agree with that but I see his point)

[True Blue Brew Crew]

9 minutes ago, homer said:

I think his argument is that an extra $5 million per year on the manager is $5 million you can't spend on a player that would provide more value. 

(I don't necessarily agree with that but I see his point)

Would be interesting if that is what he believes. I fail to see what player of any significant value the Brewers would miss out on if they bumped CC up another $3.5 million. I also wonder if some intentionally don't explicitly say that because deep down they know that hiring a cheaper manager isn't going to change a damn thing with payroll.

[SeaBass]

18 minutes ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

So that's it, it all boils down to this for you - the price isn't worth it? Why the heck would you care? You're not writing the check.

Don't worry about it man, I'm not making the decision.

Also, didn't I say this?

2 hours ago, SeaBass said:

If the Brewers end up paying him more than we've even speculated on, $8 million, $9 million, even $10 million, that's fine. I do like CC, I'll be happy if he's still here. I trust the Brewers to know what they're doing either way this goes.

 

Anyway, if this is such a slam dunk decision, why haven't the Brewers already signed him? Yeah CC wants to gauge the market but don't you think if the Brewers were offering $8 million per year he wouldn't have signed it? So clearly they're being as conservative as they can be because the money matters to them.

[SeaBass]

15 minutes ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

Would be interesting if that is what he believes. I fail to see what player of any significant value the Brewers would miss out on if they bumped CC up another $3.5 million. I also wonder if some intentionally don't explicitly say that because deep down they know that hiring a cheaper manager isn't going to change a damn thing with payroll.

For me, 5 years $35 million is my high point, meaning I wouldn't think too hard about saying yes to that. I'd love it if it were 4 years $28 million.

The years are just as important as the final AAV. What if teams are offering 6 years? I don't like the idea of being locked into a high AAV contract over a long time period. Things can change and if the club wants to make a change after year 3 I don't like the idea of throwing $21 million in a dumpster and setting it on fire. $14 million would be bad enough.

I also have more of a problem with CC allegedly saying he won't budge off the highest offer he gets somewhere else. I question how much patience the Brewers will have with those tactics.

[owbc]

CC probably changed his mind about retiring when he realized he can make more than his entire 13 year playing career from a 4 year managerial contract. 

[nate82]

Decision for the Mets job is supposedly coming to an end by next week.

Quick edit the finalists for the Mets job are Counsell, Kotsay, Green and Mendoza.  Also Cohen will be meeting with the finalists to talk financials. 

[Harold Hutchison]

I'd go six years, $45 million.

Counsell's a good manager, he's handled the clubhouse well as the team has evolved from the slugging dynamos of 2017-2019to the pitching-heavy teams from 2020-2023. He's worked well with rookies and veterans.

The Crew may be well-served to not just pay Counsell, but to also open the checkbook even more for the minor-league system, including paying the players.

[markedman5]

Heyman says CC expected to make his decision in the next day or 2…….its in a cheerleading article that the Mets should spare no expense to go get him………god I hate the sports media.