Update: Brandon Woodruff is non-tendered.

[Underachiever]

I’m curious. . For those who see this as evidence that MA is cheap, or a bad owner, or, gaslighting the fans: Is there a break-even point for admitting that the team made the right decision on Woodruff? If he never pitches again? If he pitches in 2026? 
 

or to ask another way, how many years would you have signed Woodruff for? 1? That money is lit on fire and gone. 2? 3? What would have made you say, “Damn, nice work, MA?”

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

11 minutes ago, Underachiever said:

I’m curious. . For those who see this as evidence that MA is cheap, or a bad owner, or, gaslighting the fans: Is there a break-even point for admitting that the team made the right decision on Woodruff? If he never pitches again? If he pitches in 2026? 
 

or to ask another way, how many years would you have signed Woodruff for? 1? That money is lit on fire and gone. 2? 3? What would have made you say, “Damn, nice work, MA?”

I think I have an ethical rubric here and just think non-tendering a guy who got hurt is bad personnel relations. Now, if there was an offer I don't know about, maybe that changes things.

But I'd have offered Woody 2yrs/12, with 10 backlogged to year 2. He'd only need to be worth 1 win to equal that. And he's earned it.

Others can exercise a pure business mindset if they want. I understand it. I just think there are non-financial factors that belong in the cost-benefit analysis.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

12 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Because they don't want to pay $12 million to a guy to not pitch for one season? This organization has made its share of mistakes (though fewer than at any time in its history over the past 7-8 years), but between this, Bauers/Toro trades, etc. people are grasping at straws just to hate on MA here. It's getting so irritating. 

I just disagree completely. Treating Woody like a human costs Mark A 10 mil. And he might end up seeing that 10 mil translate into value down the road.

The idea that a pro sports owner cannot afford to take care of a guy in Woody's situation is not something I will ever believe. Business is business, but it doesn't have to mean treating Woody like a piece of meat.

[Underachiever]

Just now, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

I think I have an ethical rubric here and just think non-tendering a guy who got hurt is bad personnel relations. Now, if there was an offer I don't know about, maybe that changes things.

But I'd have offered Woody 2yrs/12, with 10 backlogged to year 2. He'd only need to be worth 1 win to equal that. And he's earned it.

Others can exercise a pure business mindset if they want. I understand it. I just think there are non-financial factors that belong in the cost-benefit analysis.

I thought that if the Brewers tendered him, that meant they were on the hook for his arb salary. The most you can reduce a salary in arb is 20%, right? That means they would have needed to pay him a minimum of 8 million for next year. Not sure he would have accepted 2/12. And I am sure that the decision to non-tender didn’t happen without SOME discussion between woodruff and Arnold.

[Brewcrew82]

13 minutes ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

I just disagree completely. Treating Woody like a human costs Mark A 10 mil. And he might end up seeing that 10 mil translate into value down the road.

The idea that a pro sports owner cannot afford to take care of a guy in Woody's situation is not something I will ever believe. Business is business, but it doesn't have to mean treating Woody like a piece of meat.

They did not treat Woodruff like a piece of meat. They treated him the same any other team in our situation would have. 

None of the other guys who were nontendered received a glowing official team statement like Woodruff did. Fact of the matter is that Woodruff is almost certainly not going to pitch this season and as a result there is no more value to be had with only one year on his contract. They’re actually doing him a favor by letting him negotiate the best deal for himself on the open market.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

5 minutes ago, Underachiever said:

I thought that if the Brewers tendered him, that meant they were on the hook for his arb salary. The most you can reduce a salary in arb is 20%, right? That means they would have needed to pay him a minimum of 8 million for next year. Not sure he would have accepted 2/12. And I am sure that the decision to non-tender didn’t happen without SOME discussion between woodruff and Arnold.

Agreed. I hope the discussion was had. I thought Woody could accept a multi-year contract offer anytime, regardless of arb status. Maybe I'm wrong. And, yeah, maybe Woody says no, but you have to make the offer.

I would contend that every organization treats players like pieces of meat. And that's bad. The end of analytics is that players are assets and nothing more. Long-term that does bad things to the game. At some point, pure economic logic sinks baseball, not to mention that it's just wrong to forget these are humans.

Look, maybe the team was nice to Woody. That's good. All I'm sayings is: IF they didn't even try to avoid a nontender, that would be awful.

[wiguy94]

19 minutes ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

I think I have an ethical rubric here and just think non-tendering a guy who got hurt is bad personnel relations. Now, if there was an offer I don't know about, maybe that changes things.

But I'd have offered Woody 2yrs/12, with 10 backlogged to year 2. He'd only need to be worth 1 win to equal that. And he's earned it.

Others can exercise a pure business mindset if they want. I understand it. I just think there are non-financial factors that belong in the cost-benefit analysis.

What is Woodruff's incentive to accept a deal like that before he becomes a FA?

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

12 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

What is Woodruff's incentive to accept a deal like that before he becomes a FA?

I mean...12 mil? A guarantee that he'll have some leash to try and get back to health?

I get the point. Maybe the market is more robust than that. Then, yeah, he should go try and get what he can get. Again, I just think you have to make an offer to the guy. And it's gotta be reasonable. I think 2/12 is, but I have no qualms about him saying no. If he does, the offer itself is the team doing right by him. I think part of the point is that the Brewers really just had to clear the bare minimum here. I'll never know probably, but I hope they did.

Edit: if some team gives Woody like 3/30, I'll take it back under the argument the humane thing was letting the guy go get paid.

 

[CheeseheadInQC]

29 minutes ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

Agreed. I hope the discussion was had. I thought Woody could accept a multi-year contract offer anytime, regardless of arb status. Maybe I'm wrong. And, yeah, maybe Woody says no, but you have to make the offer.

I would contend that every organization treats players like pieces of meat. And that's bad. The end of analytics is that players are assets and nothing more. Long-term that does bad things to the game. At some point, pure economic logic sinks baseball, not to mention that it's just wrong to forget these are humans.

Look, maybe the team was nice to Woody. That's good. All I'm sayings is: IF they didn't even try to avoid a nontender, that would be awful.

Look back at the history of baseball. It has nothing to do with analytics.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

5 minutes ago, CheeseheadInQC said:

Look back at the history of baseball. It has nothing to do with analytics.

Okay. I mean, I agree.

I also think analytics accelerate the trend and mean everyone is essentially operating on cold economic logic.

I think that's bad in the same way unregulated capitalism is bad. Some things are worth protecting, even if they aren't the most profitable. Remember that we needed the pitch clock and the shift rules and the Manfred runner because efficiency was grinding the joy out of the game. I happen to like joy, even when it makes organizations less economically efficient.

[liveforoctober]

2 hours ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

I just disagree completely. Treating Woody like a human costs Mark A 10 mil. And he might end up seeing that 10 mil translate into value down the road.

The idea that a pro sports owner cannot afford to take care of a guy in Woody's situation is not something I will ever believe. Business is business, but it doesn't have to mean treating Woody like a piece of meat.

But until the conversations are released we just have no idea what went on behind the scenes, right?

All we know is he is hurt and there were talks about trading him and then we non-tendered him.

So if the story comes out that the Brewers offered BW 2yr/$14mil and Woodruff turned it downed and asked to be given the chance to look for a trade .. then the Brewers let him explore that - isn't that treating him EXACTLY how they should have?

I guess I just can't waste angst on something speculative.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

19 minutes ago, liveforoctober said:

But until the conversations are released we just have no idea what went on behind the scenes, right?

All we know is he is hurt and there were talks about trading him and then we non-tendered him.

So if the story comes out that the Brewers offered BW 2yr/$14mil and Woodruff turned it downed and asked to be given the chance to look for a trade .. then the Brewers let him explore that - isn't that treating him EXACTLY how they should have?

I guess I just can't waste angst on something speculative.

Absolutely.

I'm not angry or angsty about it. We'll never know. 

I just think it's worth pointing out it's a pretty bad way to treat someone IF it was a straight nontender. And I hope anyone asking Woody (or the Brewers) about it as a journalist is asking that question because it seems an important one, even if you get a PR-speak response.

[ClosetBrewerFan]

Honestly, its not like Woodruff will be out of a job. He can now sign with any team and he will get a contract this offseason, likely a 2 year deal.  I think they treated him fairly. He knows this is a business and they are not going to pay him for 1 year just to rehab next year.

Attanasio did say that they discussed a 2 year deal. no idea what the terms were, but it was discussed.

[Fear The Chorizo]

22 minutes ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

Absolutely.

I'm not angry or angsty about it. We'll never know. 

I just think it's worth pointing out it's a pretty bad way to treat someone IF it was a straight nontender. And I hope anyone asking Woody (or the Brewers) about it as a journalist is asking that question because it seems an important one, even if you get a PR-speak response.

Woodruff has made about $25M to play baseball over the past 10 or so years with the Brewers.

That is a pretty nice way to treat a piece of meat. 

Paying a guy $10-12m to rehab because you're worried that's the only way for him to be treated like a human?  Please.

[JefferyLeonard]

4 hours ago, Underachiever said:

I’m curious. . For those who see this as evidence that MA is cheap, or a bad owner, or, gaslighting the fans: Is there a break-even point for admitting that the team made the right decision on Woodruff? If he never pitches again? If he pitches in 2026? 
 

or to ask another way, how many years would you have signed Woodruff for? 1? That money is lit on fire and gone. 2? 3? What would have made you say, “Damn, nice work, MA?”

Here's what I will say...I think the number we have seen for Woody in arbitration was $15 million. I will admit they made the right decision IF and only IF they now take that $15million they just saved and put it towards a big time bat. Not splitting it between an *mill and 7 mill player, but the whole 15Mill(plus 10+ more) towards a legit bat. Whether that's an acquisition via trade or as a FA, I don't really care. And before anyone says "who exactly are they supposed to go get"? That's not for me to decide, that's on Matt Arnold and his team to decide. Otherwise, if Woody's money is "split" between two guys, it will just be wasted anyway(those guys won't produce at big time levels most likely), so it's no different to me than if you would have just tendered Woody.

I keep thinking one of the days they will "get it", but I have been saying that for years and they still haven't figured it out. 

[CheeseheadInQC]

41 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Here's what I will say...I think the number we have seen for Woody in arbitration was $15 million. I will admit they made the right decision IF and only IF they now take that $15million they just saved and put it towards a big time bat. Not splitting it between an *mill and 7 mill player, but the whole 15Mill(plus 10+ more) towards a legit bat. Whether that's an acquisition via trade or as a FA, I don't really care. And before anyone says "who exactly are they supposed to go get"? That's not for me to decide, that's on Matt Arnold and his team to decide. Otherwise, if Woody's money is "split" between two guys, it will just be wasted anyway(those guys won't produce at big time levels most likely), so it's no different to me than if you would have just tendered Woody.

I keep thinking one of the days they will "get it", but I have been saying that for years and they still haven't figured it out. 

What if they instead spend it on a pitcher to, you know, replace Woodruff?

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

2 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Woodruff has made about $25M to play baseball over the past 10 or so years with the Brewers.

That is a pretty nice way to treat a piece of meat. 

Paying a guy $10-12m to rehab because you're worried that's the only way for him to be treated like a human?  Please.

Dude, the principle applies no matter what. If you're only goal is to get the most production for the least financial input, you're treating the guy like a widget. I contend that no good organization should treat people like widgets, whether they're paying them minimum wage or 2.5 mil/yr.

If that makes me a Marxist, fine. I just didn't think it would be that controversial to say Woody deserves some human consideration given he's been underpaid relative to the value he's provided until now. I mean, disagree if you want, but wouldn't you want your boss recognizing past value and compensating you for it? Wouldn't you want your boss taking on a reasonable level of risk even if it seemed unlikely you'd achieve the same level of production in the future? This isn't that freakin' hard. If it's crazy to think Woody earned a little extra consideration, this game's in worse shape than I thought.

Edit: under the scenario I outlined, you'd also be paying him like 2 mil to rehab and like 10 mil to pitch the next year, betting he'd be a 1-win player. Again, fine if you think that's a bad bet, but the idea that it's some insane level of commitment is just silly.

[nate82]

2 hours ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

Edit: under the scenario I outlined, you'd also be paying him like 2 mil to rehab and like 10 mil to pitch the next year, betting he'd be a 1-win player. Again, fine if you think that's a bad bet, but the idea that it's some insane level of commitment is just silly.

How do you know the Brewers didn't offer Woodruff a 2-year deal similar to what you are proposing.  What if Woodruff is the one who turned this down? 

I don't believe Woodruff was open to a 2-year deal and was only interested in a longer term deal.  I believe this is why he wasn't traded. 

I think Woodruff is just going to ride it out and see if he can get ready by the half way mark of the season and try and catch on with someone.  Then if everything goes right he can go into FA next year without a QO attached to him which should give him a boost in FA and give him that FA contract he is looking for.

[Team Canada]

4 hours ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

I just didn't think it would be that controversial to say Woody deserves some human consideration given he's been underpaid relative to the value he's provided until now.

The issue is, as has been pointed out already, and you agreed with, we have no basis for saying that didn't happen. In fact, it's exceedingly likely they tried to come up with a 2 year deal and he elected not to take it.

[Fear The Chorizo]

11 hours ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

Dude, the principle applies no matter what. If you're only goal is to get the most production for the least financial input, you're treating the guy like a widget. I contend that no good organization should treat people like widgets, whether they're paying them minimum wage or 2.5 mil/yr.

If that makes me a Marxist, fine. I just didn't think it would be that controversial to say Woody deserves some human consideration given he's been underpaid relative to the value he's provided until now. I mean, disagree if you want, but wouldn't you want your boss recognizing past value and compensating you for it? Wouldn't you want your boss taking on a reasonable level of risk even if it seemed unlikely you'd achieve the same level of production in the future? This isn't that freakin' hard. If it's crazy to think Woody earned a little extra consideration, this game's in worse shape than I thought.

Edit: under the scenario I outlined, you'd also be paying him like 2 mil to rehab and like 10 mil to pitch the next year, betting he'd be a 1-win player. Again, fine if you think that's a bad bet, but the idea that it's some insane level of commitment is just silly.

Woody got paid almost 11 million in 2023 during his arby 2 season to give them less than 70 ip due to injury.  So he was grossly overpaid then.  Up to this point woodruff and the Brewers didn't sign a longterm extension that guaranteed him more $$$, likely because woodruff bet on himself in hopes to cash in on a bloated fa contract - injuries blew that bet up in his face, and unfortunately for him his longterm potential for signing a 9 figure contract appears very limited.  This is the downside to not signing a longterm deal early in arbitration, and it's not the Brewers being robbers for compensating woodruff annually based on the current system they have to operate in for player salaries.

This hypothetical 2 year deal for $12m you keep mentioning is also a joke and totally not realistic - his 2024 arby # would've been $12m alone, and even if he's injured and out the whole season the players union would've been beside themselves if he would have signed a contract like that that also bought out his first free agent year.  It's not an insane level of commitment, but it's also unreasonable to think woodruff would sign that.  I thought one option would be to offer a 2 year deal in the neighborhood of $15m with a 3rd year club option of $20m, but we don't know yet if any sort of short term extension was discussed or not.  That being said, I agree with others in this thread who want to stay out if debating hypothetical when we don't know what was discussed I terms of contracts with woodruff, both since his shoulder injury AND all the previous offseasons that included longterm prearbitration extensions to other brewer pitchers (Peralta and Ashby)

[Outlander]

Last year was arbitration 3 for Woodruff, there was certainly some service time manipulation with him. This would have been arbitration 4.  

[TURBO]

Woodruff is going to be a Cub, isn't he?

I'm also expecting a Burnes to Cubs at some point as well, I can only hope that in the process, we take the Cubs to the cleaners...

[brewcrewdue80]

Woodruff is a FA now. Under his circumstances,  I'd think that is better for him moving forward.  It's known he's going to miss most if not all of 2024.  His only downside at this moment is the rehab and Dr's he could have working with him within the team he's signed to. But ah, yes he can still sign with a team to gain that of his choosing.  He can also go the route on his own and as he prepares a return to throwing, have a showcase say in August  and sign a deal then that could still portend 20+M come 2025 season, should he showcase well.  The 2/12 or 2/14 that locks him from the 2025 earning potential.  Waiting til July and August, will still be enviable to a team signing him having 2+months to negotiate a long end contract if he's throwing well in September.  Keep looking at this from FO perspective,  when you ought to look at it from Woodruffs perspective.  His decision making. He's losing his age 31 season. 2yr deal makes it age 32 committed. He was on track for top 15 paid SP in baseball. Something that declines with age. Having age 32- for start to that deal vs age 33- is impactful. Until he shows he's no longer a SP caliber his value is much higher than being thought of here.

[Underachiever]

14 hours ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

 

If that makes me a Marxist, fine.

I’d put you more in the anti-fascist category, which is a good place to be.

[wiguy94]

2 hours ago, TURBO said:

Woodruff is going to be a Cub, isn't he?

I'm also expecting a Burnes to Cubs at some point as well, I can only hope that in the process, we take the Cubs to the cleaners...

Worst thing about Counsell going to the Cubs is it has made the inferiority complex some fans have with the Cubs totally out of control. Just because Counsell went to the Cubs doesn't mean every ex-Brewer is heading there as well.