Next Brewers extension candidates?

[Outlander]

I hope they are talking to Peralta. Might be willing to add a couple of years as he isn't guaranteed much right now if he got injured. 

[BrewerFan]

11 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

I mean, is he going to take $25mil over 8 years? Just to hit FA in his 30s?

It's guaranteeing him 25M dollars and it's over 6, then the Brewers would retain the options. 

And yeah, I think so. Peralta and Ashby took less. Maybe he doesn't accept it, but it's a pretty reasonable offer. You're giving him financial security. He's not a pitcher without risk. 

Emanuel Clase just took a very similar deal(though before two pitchers got ~9 figures in Free Agency, so the price may have gone up).

He'll make ~2.2M the next 3 years. That's roughly 23M for the last 3 years of arbitration and then a couple of team options. 

He'd do that because he's not yet made anything. Maybe he gets a 2M signing bonus? Maybe just to ensure no matter what happens, he makes 25M dollars?

IDK, I feel like you can always ask these guys why they took the deals they took. The Acuna Jr, Albies, Peralta(as on and on) type players, but it's likely easier for us to project out how much they COULD make if things went right than it is for the players to turn down life-changing money. 

11 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

He will be 29 when he hits FA. Actually, I think the first year of a new contract would be his age 30 season. 

William Contreras is a classic example of the kind of player the Brewers have wisely just flat out refused to even entertain an extension for. Lucroy was never offered a contract, nor was Hader. We don't need to be handing out big contracts to 30+ year old catchers/relievers. 

Lucroy WAS offered and signed a contract extension at pretty much the exact same age as Lucroy. And it's not a "new" contract, it'd be when his extension starts. Lucroys went through age 31, Contreas here, hypothetically would go through age 32. Having the extra years of team control with Lucroy led to the Brewers getting a top-20 prospect where they would have otherwise watched him walk for nothing.

They turned down Lucroy who wanted an extension on TOP of that, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about buying out his remaining team control and adding a year or two(with 4 years left, likely two years) of team control. Not the Ryan Braun extension years out. 

The Brewers don't offer 30-year-old FA's contracts usually because you end up paying them through their 30s and their decline...but in this case, you're not doing that at all. You're simply tacking on a couple of years of team control for financial security.  I'm not sure how the Brewers have flatly refused to offer these types of players extensions.

9 hours ago, Lathund said:

Uribe: Just no. He's a reliever, go year to year. There just isn't enough upside in a reliever to do this, and so much risk in a high-effort arm like that. 

What's the worst-case scenario in signing him to an Ashby/Peralta-type extension? Ashby? 6 years 25M. He has TJ surgery and you've got a guy making 4-5M in the middle of the deal unavailable? That's one year of Yelich. What's the upside? He becomes a truly dominant reliever and now in 3-4-5 years if you have a bunch of BP arms, his contract is that much more valuable, OR they don't have to trade their closer in a playoff race because they're worried about losing him for nothing.

Contrast that to what we've seen with Hader and now Williams? 5/100M dollar extensions and you got a lot less for him when you traded him than you'd have otherwise gotten...and now we're talking about trading Williams.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree here. The guy is an Clase type arm and that justifies a deal that...at that price would be extremely team-friendly. 

 

I gotta say, for the people who think Uribe is too risky, you HAVE to think Misiorowski is too risky as well...right?

[Lathund]

7 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

What's the worst-case scenario in signing him to an Ashby/Peralta-type extension? Ashby? 6 years 25M. He has TJ surgery and you've got a guy making 4-5M in the middle of the deal unavailable? That's one year of Yelich. What's the upside? He becomes a truly dominant reliever and now in 3-4-5 years if you have a bunch of BP arms, his contract is that much more valuable, OR they don't have to trade their closer in a playoff race because they're worried about losing him for nothing.

Contrast that to what we've seen with Hader and now Williams? 5/100M dollar extensions and you got a lot less for him when you traded him than you'd have otherwise gotten...and now we're talking about trading Williams.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree here. The guy is an Clase type arm and that justifies a deal that...at that price would be extremely team-friendly. 

 

I gotta say, for the people who think Uribe is too risky, you HAVE to think Misiorowski is too risky as well...right?

Well for one thing, 6 years $25m isn't a discount. It's more than Devin Williams will get in his team control years. It's roughly what Edwin Diaz got. It's only a discount if he is one of the best relievers of all time and somehow stays completely healthy (i.e Josh Hader). Whereas Peralta's deal was a massive discount. Ashby at least has a chance to be a starter, so it could be too, though the jury is still out. So it's not that $4m AAV is a lot of money, it's just that it's more than he'd otherwise get paid. 

So what you're paying for is the right to keep him through team options for a couple of years afterwards. You mentioned 2 $10m options earlier IIRC. Which is a steal if he really is Williams or Hader. But realistically, that's a fairly low likelihood. It's quite a lot more likely that the options represent good/solid but not great value. Like it's what Chapman, Neris, Moore got this offseason. It's better than that because he'd have more upside, would be younger, and could get QO'd at the end. But it illustrates what the market thinks reasonably well. And then there's the likelyhood that he isn't a closer calibre guy, or he is but has health issues, in which case the options aren't worth it and he'd already have been overpaid by $10m in his team control years. 

The starter-reliever dichotomy is real. A $10m option is... fine. But think of it like how the biggest reliever contract ever is $20m AAV for 5 years. The biggest starter contract ever (I'll use Cole for this, not Ohtani because I have no idea how to compare that to anything) is $36m AAV for 9 years. So $8m options for Peralta and $10m options for Uribe are worlds apart. There are many, many starters who teams would pay $10m AAV for. There are far fewer relievers. This offseason (so far) it's 18 starters (and at least 2 more to come) and only 6 relievers getting $10m AAV. Last offseason, 21 vs 6. And keep in mind there are a lot more relievers on the FA market than starters. A reliever who pitches 60 innings pitches ~4% of a teams innings, and thus affects 2% of their total innings (offense + defense). I am very much a believer that that doesn't warrant paying a ton of money for, even if you can pick and choose those 2% innings to an extent. It makes even less sense for a smaller budget team. With the current team budget, $10m is ~8%. Take a look at what the Brewers have paid any reliever not called Josh Hader (And now Devin Williams) and you'll see that they probably agree with me on this. 

So basically, I think it's a combination of it being too uncertain that he will fulfill the conditions needed for it to be worth it, but probably more so that the upside is limited even if he does. It's also easier for the Brewers to find and develop relievers out of "nowhere" than it is to do the same with a starter or position player, so the "replacement level" (To use the term incorrectly, but in a way that kinda works anyway) is higher to begin with. 

Now there is obviously a level of contract at which point it would be worth it. Freddy Peralta's actual deal ($15m total + two $8m options) is obviously better, makes it far more likely to get a discount (or at least somewhat even) compared to arbitration. Still not something I'd prioritize over extending other players, but it starts making sense. Get it a bit lower, or make it buy out another FA year and I'd be more interested. 

As for Misiorowski, much of the same applies, and I'd say the downside is even greater than for Uribe (Farther from majors, control issues, and watching him pitch makes *my* elbow hurt). But at the same time, the upside is greater. His stuff is even better than Uribe's, and there is at least some chance he sticks as a starter. So my objection to Uribe isn't necessarily that it's "too risky", but that the risk:reward ratio is off regardless. Misiorowki is more risky, but the potential reward is much greater. 

So I'd be more interested in Mis than Uribe for this. But ideally I'd wait to see how likely he looks to stick as a starter before committing, so he also wouldn't be my higher priority. 

[SF70]

No extensions to pitchers unless it’s a big-time team friendly deal like Peralta’s and Ashby’s deals are.

This team pumps out quality relievers like the reliever factory they are. 

This team is set up perfectly over the next half-decade with their farm system that they don’t need to extend anyone unless it’s the right deal and for the right player.

Top positional prospect talent only. 

[MrTPlush]

10 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Lucroy WAS offered and signed a contract extension at pretty much the exact same age as Lucroy. And it's not a "new" contract, it'd be when his extension starts. Lucroys went through age 31, Contreas here, hypothetically would go through age 32. Having the extra years of team control with Lucroy led to the Brewers getting a top-20 prospect where they would have otherwise watched him walk for nothing.

They turned down Lucroy who wanted an extension on TOP of that, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about buying out his remaining team control and adding a year or two(with 4 years left, likely two years) of team control. Not the Ryan Braun extension years out. 

The Brewers don't offer 30-year-old FA's contracts usually because you end up paying them through their 30s and their decline...but in this case, you're not doing that at all. You're simply tacking on a couple of years of team control for financial security.  I'm not sure how the Brewers have flatly refused to offer these types of players extensions.

The difference is, Lucroy was kinda a nothing burger back then. They extended him because they figured he was at worst a average-ish catcher. Something nice to have locked up so you aren’t shopping for a catcher each offseason at the cost of your pitchers learning a new guy each year. There was virtually no risk because the extension was so brutally cheap. I think they only ended up buying out a single FA year. It was kinda a no brainer for Lucroy as he had a LONG way to go to even hit arbitration and his track record was so minimal it would take very little poor play to potentially never see MLB play again.

Contreras is only a year away from arbitration now and put up a full season of elite play at the plate and dramatically improved his defense…the later of which is largely how we managed to acquire him so cheaply. Regardless of his performance this year, he will make a few million in arby next year and even regardless of his 2025 play we (or someone else) will pay him millions again. He already has financial security…not a ton, but definitely pretty risk free millions ahead.

Would he take a tiny extension to bank tens of millions? Possibly, probably the last offseason with a chance to do it. The problem is, I’m sure he and his agent know how catchers age. Getting to FA at 29 versus 31 is a dramatic difference. Not only is it a smaller payday…but that is a long two years to keep producing as a catcher.

And for the Brewers, if you were going to do an extension, why would it be Contreras? You have Quero right behind him, wouldn’t it be better for us to try and lock up someone else?  It doesn’t seem like either side would be highly motivated to make it happen.

[Jopal78]

Look around the league at the guarantees players are getting as free agents. You may be able to extend some foreign born pre-arbitration eligible players, but the American born players, and veterans simply don’t do extensions very often anymore unless they’re at “market rate” prices. 

[BrewerFan]

13 hours ago, Lathund said:

Well for one thing, 6 years $25m isn't a discount. It's more than Devin Williams will get in his team control years. It's roughly what Edwin Diaz got. It's only a discount if he is one of the best relievers of all time and somehow stays completely healthy (i.e Josh Hader). Whereas Peralta's deal was a massive discount. Ashby at least has a chance to be a starter, so it could be too, though the jury is still out. So it's not that $4m AAV is a lot of money, it's just that it's more than he'd otherwise get paid. 

So what you're paying for is the right to keep him through team options for a couple of years afterwards. You mentioned 2 $10m options earlier IIRC. Which is a steal if he really is Williams or Hader. But realistically, that's a fairly low likelihood. It's quite a lot more likely that the options represent good/solid but not great value. Like it's what Chapman, Neris, Moore got this offseason. It's better than that because he'd have more upside, would be younger, and could get QO'd at the end. But it illustrates what the market thinks reasonably well. And then there's the likelyhood that he isn't a closer calibre guy, or he is but has health issues, in which case the options aren't worth it and he'd already have been overpaid by $10m in his team control years. 

The starter-reliever dichotomy is real. A $10m option is... fine. But think of it like how the biggest reliever contract ever is $20m AAV for 5 years. The biggest starter contract ever (I'll use Cole for this, not Ohtani because I have no idea how to compare that to anything) is $36m AAV for 9 years. So $8m options for Peralta and $10m options for Uribe are worlds apart. There are many, many starters who teams would pay $10m AAV for. There are far fewer relievers. This offseason (so far) it's 18 starters (and at least 2 more to come) and only 6 relievers getting $10m AAV. Last offseason, 21 vs 6. And keep in mind there are a lot more relievers on the FA market than starters. A reliever who pitches 60 innings pitches ~4% of a teams innings, and thus affects 2% of their total innings (offense + defense). I am very much a believer that that doesn't warrant paying a ton of money for, even if you can pick and choose those 2% innings to an extent. It makes even less sense for a smaller budget team. With the current team budget, $10m is ~8%. Take a look at what the Brewers have paid any reliever not called Josh Hader (And now Devin Williams) and you'll see that they probably agree with me on this. 

So basically, I think it's a combination of it being too uncertain that he will fulfill the conditions needed for it to be worth it, but probably more so that the upside is limited even if he does. It's also easier for the Brewers to find and develop relievers out of "nowhere" than it is to do the same with a starter or position player, so the "replacement level" (To use the term incorrectly, but in a way that kinda works anyway) is higher to begin with. 

Now there is obviously a level of contract at which point it would be worth it. Freddy Peralta's actual deal ($15m total + two $8m options) is obviously better, makes it far more likely to get a discount (or at least somewhat even) compared to arbitration. Still not something I'd prioritize over extending other players, but it starts making sense. Get it a bit lower, or make it buy out another FA year and I'd be more interested. 

As for Misiorowski, much of the same applies, and I'd say the downside is even greater than for Uribe (Farther from majors, control issues, and watching him pitch makes *my* elbow hurt). But at the same time, the upside is greater. His stuff is even better than Uribe's, and there is at least some chance he sticks as a starter. So my objection to Uribe isn't necessarily that it's "too risky", but that the risk:reward ratio is off regardless. Misiorowki is more risky, but the potential reward is much greater. 

So I'd be more interested in Mis than Uribe for this. But ideally I'd wait to see how likely he looks to stick as a starter before committing, so he also wouldn't be my higher priority. 

All fair points. I'm just looking at where I think prices will go for dominant BP arms that I think Uribe is...a near lock if healthy to become. 

The one point, that'd be more than Edwin Diaz made...technically, but if you adjust the minimum salaries, Diaz makes more. And I'd also say if you were looking at closer salaries 6-8 years ago, two guys making 100M and 20 AAV would have sounded absurd. So...I think there's more upside to it than you're inferring and then the option to keep him is...huge. 

But I guess it comes down to betting on Uribe reaching his upside vs the downside. 

[monty57]

On 3/2/2024 at 9:57 AM, Jopal78 said:

Look around the league at the guarantees players are getting as free agents. You may be able to extend some foreign born pre-arbitration eligible players, but the American born players, and veterans simply don’t do extensions very often anymore unless they’re at “market rate” prices. 

Here are a few recent ones:

 

Aaron Ashby was born in Kansas City. 

Bobby Witt, Jr was born in Colleyville, TX

Corbin Carroll was born in Seattle, WA

Myles Straw was born in Garden Grove, CA

Ke'Bryan Hayes was born in Tomball, TX

Garrett Whitlock was born in Snellville, GA

Trevor Stephan was born in Magnolia, TX

Michael Harris II was born in DeKalb, GA

Hunter Greene was born in Los Angeles, CA

Spencer Strider was born in Columbus, OH

 

 

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, monty57 said:

Here are a few recent ones:

 

Aaron Ashby was born in Kansas City. 

Bobby Witt, Jr was born in Colleyville, TX

Corbin Carroll was born in Seattle, WA

Myles Straw was born in Garden Grove, CA

Ke'Bryan Hayes was born in Tomball, TX

Garrett Whitlock was born in Snellville, GA

Trevor Stephan was born in Magnolia, TX

Michael Harris II was born in DeKalb, GA

Hunter Greene was born in Los Angeles, CA

Spencer Strider was born in Columbus, OH

 

 

What’s your point? If Witt holds up his end it will be 377 million across 14 years or roughly 27 million AAV per. Not like he’s taking a discount that is a market rate extension.

The two extra years of control  the Diamondbacks got on Corbin Carroll are at $28 million average annual value. Another market rate extension.

I think listing  12 players as a counter example  is statistically insignificant. Buying out arbitration years in exchange for a couple extra years at market rates in the back end is a pretty risky gambit and gives the player really nothing to lose. Look no further than Ashby missed an entire year with a serious shoulder injury, nobody yet knows if he’s going to be effective going forward,  and the Brewers would have come out ahead in this instance going, year-to-year with him. 
 

Players  play for money. If a  team wants to pay the going rate for a player, they can sign anybody they want for as long as they want.

[monty57]

16 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

What’s your point? If Witt holds up his end it will be 377 million across 14 years or roughly 27 million AAV per. Not like he’s taking a discount that is a market rate extension.

The two extra years of control  the Diamondbacks got on Corbin Carroll are at $28 million average annual value. Another market rate extension.

I think listing  12 players as a counter example  is statistically insignificant. Buying out arbitration years in exchange for a couple extra years at market rates in the back end is a pretty risky gambit and gives the player really nothing to lose. Look no further than Ashby missed an entire year with a serious shoulder injury, nobody yet knows if he’s going to be effective going forward,  and the Brewers would have come out ahead in this instance going, year-to-year with him. 
 

Players  play for money. If a  team wants to pay the going rate for a player, they can sign anybody they want for as long as they want.

You said that only foreign players sign early extensions. I found a list of the 15 pre-arby extensions done over the past two years, and 10 of them were American born. I think that refutes the thought that American-born players will not sign early extensions.

Many players will not sign early extensions, but some will. The Brewers should determine which players they think make sense to extend, and give them the offer. They should not base this on whether they were born in America or a foreign country.

[Jopal78]

19 minutes ago, monty57 said:

You said that only foreign players sign early extensions. I found a list of the 15 pre-arby extensions done over the past two years, and 10 of them were American born. I think that refutes the thought that American-born players will not sign early extensions.

Many players will not sign early extensions, but some will. The Brewers should determine which players they think make sense to extend, and give them the offer. They should not base this on whether they were born in America or a foreign country.

I did say American born players don’t do them “very often”. You cited 15 out of how many pre-arbitration players? Hundreds? More anecdotal than anything, but ok fair point. 
 

But why do you assume the Brewers are dumb and haven’t determined which players it makes sense to extend? It seems to me they would not be doing their due diligence if they DIDN’T routinely make those type of overtures to players they like. Therefore, the lack of such extensions being completed, more probably true than not, reflects the overwhelming disinclination of players to do contract extensions where they’re giving up free agency years .

[monty57]

2 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

15 out of how many pre-arbitration players? Hundreds? More anecdotal than anything, but ok fair point. 
 

But why do you assume the Brewers are dumb and haven’t determined which players it makes sense to extend? It seems to me they would not be doing their due diligence if they DIDN’T routinely make those type of overtures to players they like. Therefore, the lack of such extensions being completed, more probably true than not, reflects the overwhelming disinclination of players to do contract extensions where they’re giving up free agency years .

Hence my line "many players will not sign early extensions, but some will." 

I certainly don't think the Brewers are dumb. I think they're one of the smart teams out there who started doing early extensions before others.

I don't disagree that many players are disinclined to sign early extensions. Early extensions are generally done at a big discount relative to what the player could get going year-to-year, as there is a lot of risk transferred from the player to the team. A lot of players will "bet on themselves" even though there is a risk that they could get injured or underperform, rather than signing a long-term deal at a discounted rate to gain certainty.

Also, most pre-arby players aren't good enough for the team to offer an extension. Players don't have to be Chourio-level to get an extension, but they have to be good. Someone like Taylor would not get offered an extension, but someone like Frelick or Mitchell could. With a resurgence in our farm, we have a number of players who fit in the latter category, so I'd guess that the Brewers are offering many of our young players extensions. Most probably won't sign, but I hope some do.

So, as you can see, I agree with a lot of what you've said. My last two posts have just disagreed with your earlier statement that only foreign born players would sign early extensions, and American born players would not. 

[CheezWizHed]

On 3/1/2024 at 8:33 PM, BrewerFan said:

I gotta say, for the people who think Uribe is too risky, you HAVE to think Misiorowski is too risky as well...right?

To me the difference is the upside;  an ACE starter >> a top closer.  And the availability of similar level BP arms compared to the availability of similar level starters.  

Having said that... the bottom line is about the amount of $$.  If you were going to extend Uribe, it would be for less than Mis would get at comparable points in their career - (e.g. I wouldn't extend Mis this year, but wait until he succeeds at AAA and perhaps a few starts at the MLB level.  That is comparable to where Uribe would be this year). 

If cash flow isn't a concern, you extend everyone that will accept a decent contract.  But since cash flow is a concern, you have to prioritize.  Thus, I'd prioritize Mis over Uribe. 

[Jopal78]

23 minutes ago, monty57 said:

Hence my line "many players will not sign early extensions, but some will." 

I certainly don't think the Brewers are dumb. I think they're one of the smart teams out there who started doing early extensions before others.

I don't disagree that many players are disinclined to sign early extensions. Early extensions are generally done at a big discount relative to what the player could get going year-to-year, as there is a lot of risk transferred from the player to the team. A lot of players will "bet on themselves" even though there is a risk that they could get injured or underperform, rather than signing a long-term deal at a discounted rate to gain certainty.

Also, most pre-arby players aren't good enough for the team to offer an extension. Players don't have to be Chourio-level to get an extension, but they have to be good. Someone like Taylor would not get offered an extension, but someone like Frelick or Mitchell could. With a resurgence in our farm, we have a number of players who fit in the latter category, so I'd guess that the Brewers are offering many of our young players extensions. Most probably won't sign, but I hope some do.

So, as you can see, I agree with a lot of what you've said. My last two posts have just disagreed with your earlier statement that only foreign born players would sign early extensions, and American born players would not. 

…. But I never said “only” so I guess we’re not really in disagreement 

[BrewerFan]

5 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

I did say American born players don’t do them “very often”. You cited 15 out of how many pre-arbitration players? Hundreds? More anecdotal than anything, but ok fair point. 
 

But why do you assume the Brewers are dumb and haven’t determined which players it makes sense to extend? It seems to me they would not be doing their due diligence if they DIDN’T routinely make those type of overtures to players they like. Therefore, the lack of such extensions being completed, more probably true than not, reflects the overwhelming disinclination of players to do contract extensions where they’re giving up free agency years .

Well...we know a couple of pitchers the Brewers didn't offer contract extensions to(at least from 2020 through now). One of them is now in Baltimore at the moment.

 

On 3/2/2024 at 9:57 AM, Jopal78 said:

Look around the league at the guarantees players are getting as free agents. You may be able to extend some foreign born pre-arbitration eligible players, but the American born players, and veterans simply don’t do extensions very often anymore unless they’re at “market rate” prices. 

Just off the top of my head, along with the 10 players from the last two years, Austin Riley and Sean Murphy should also be on that list.

Players like financial security. The question also is less who will accept one and more who should they TRY to sign next.

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

To me the difference is the upside;  an ACE starter >> a top closer.  And the availability of similar level BP arms compared to the availability of similar level starters.  

Having said that... the bottom line is about the amount of $$.  If you were going to extend Uribe, it would be for less than Mis would get at comparable points in their career - (e.g. I wouldn't extend Mis this year, but wait until he succeeds at AAA and perhaps a few starts at the MLB level.  That is comparable to where Uribe would be this year). 

If cash flow isn't a concern, you extend everyone that will accept a decent contract.  But since cash flow is a concern, you have to prioritize.  Thus, I'd prioritize Mis over Uribe. 

Ok...it can be for less than Mis would get at a comparable point in their careers, but Mis isn't at that point. He's hopefully a year away from that point.

I guess I just disagree. An Ashby or Peralta-type deal for Uribe is a relatively safe offer at this point. He's a reliever. We also weren't sure what Ashby was(still aren't) at the time of that extension. 6 years and ~25M for a guy with THAT type of stuff who's already shown how dominant he can be, I feel like you're buying early on a stock that's only going up. 

I guess I'm just not quite as risk adverse to giving a reliever an extension if I think they're unique type talents...

[CheezWizHed]

12 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Ok...it can be for less than Mis would get at a comparable point in their careers, but Mis isn't at that point. He's hopefully a year away from that point.

I guess I just disagree. An Ashby or Peralta-type deal for Uribe is a relatively safe offer at this point. He's a reliever. We also weren't sure what Ashby was(still aren't) at the time of that extension. 6 years and ~25M for a guy with THAT type of stuff who's already shown how dominant he can be, I feel like you're buying early on a stock that's only going up. 

I guess I'm just not quite as risk adverse to giving a reliever an extension if I think they're unique type talents. reliever

Isn't so much about risk adverse.  More about opportunity cost.  We know the Brewers aren't going to be handing out these contracts to 25% of their rookies... probably not 10% of them. 

Knowing you are going to be limited to only the top options... where do you focus the attention?  I just see Uribe lower on the priority list being a reliever. I would've said the same thing about Burnes/Woody over Hader/Williams, too.  

[BrewerFan]

48 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Isn't so much about risk adverse.  More about opportunity cost.  We know the Brewers aren't going to be handing out these contracts to 25% of their rookies... probably not 10% of them. 

Knowing you are going to be limited to only the top options... where do you focus the attention?  I just see Uribe lower on the priority list being a reliever. I would've said the same thing about Burnes/Woody over Hader/Williams, too.  

I guess I'd focus the attention on the guys with high ceilings who are willing to sign. I'm not viewing it as an either-or. I think it makes sense to sign as many young players as you can(obviously if they appear to be high-ceiling young players, not Blake Perkin).

I'd sign Contreras using the Sean Murphy deal as a starting point, adjusting as he's a year behind. 
Wiemer as I think he could be signed to a favorable contract and has massive upside.
Uribe...obviously.

I view it like picking stocks. Obviously if there's a...Microsoft, it make sense to buy that. 

But it also makes sense to invest in a smaller sector ETF. A smaller, select group. You may have a couple that are losers are don't grow a lot, but if you group them together, you'll most likely see returns on your investment.

I understand the counterpoint though. Just agree to disagree.