Freddy Peralta

[MrTPlush]

10 hours ago, Scooterfletcher said:

My quote on the last post failed on me, but does he mean for Freddy to play it the 1/8 as is while getting a 2/50 extension for 27 and 28?  Or does he mean chop up the 1/8 and give Peralta a 2/50 covering 26/27?  Because that second option is ludicrous.

He means the later and it makes no sense. It makes no sense for anyone involved really.

Peralta got his insurance, he has made $30mil now. Like Woodruff, his arm can implode 5 games into 2026 and make another $15mil regardless. Plus millions more even after that if it wasn’t career ending…even if he doesn’t become elite again like Woodruff. Woodruff didn’t even make it through a partial 2025 season and he still is likely going to bank another $50mil+ in the worst case.

And for the Brewers, buying a single additional year of FA for $42mil is insane.

 

[GAME05]

If you start making exceptions to their trade strategy it's not really a strategy anymore. We couldn't afford Fielder, Sabathia, Burnes, etc., etc. Welcome to small-market baseball. Thanks for being here on the cheap, now go make your money elsewhere. Already having a deep minor leagues isn't a luxury for us but a necessity.

And if we're over-full on young SPs, why not include someone like Gasser or Henderson in the deal?

 

[Scooterfletcher]

4 hours ago, GAME05 said:

If you start making exceptions to their trade strategy it's not really a strategy anymore. We couldn't afford Fielder, Sabathia, Burnes, etc., etc. Welcome to small-market baseball. Thanks for being here on the cheap, now go make your money elsewhere. Already having a deep minor leagues isn't a luxury for us but a necessity.

And if we're over-full on young SPs, why not include someone like Gasser or Henderson in the deal?

 

Well said.   Could we win a WS with Peralta next year in what we all agree will be his final year in mil?  Yes.   Could we win a WS next year without him, yes.   We need to maximize assets literally at all times if the goal is to improve our chances of winning a WS the next ten years. 

[brewmann04]

Arnold would listen to all offers as he should and decide if one worth it 

[Austin Tatious]

Since Milwaukee is a contender, I would keep Peralta and just take the draft pick compensation. You’d have to blow me away or  else I’m riding with him.  

For Burnes, Baltimore gave us the draft pick (turned into Burke) but then the delta was Ortiz and Hall. That type of delta from the draft pick alone is not close to enough to give up a year of Peralta when you’re coming off the best record in baseball and you already have a solid farm system. 

[tmwiese55]

On 10/24/2025 at 11:14 PM, Scooterfletcher said:

My quote on the last post failed on me, but does he mean for Freddy to play it the 1/8 as is while getting a 2/50 extension for 27 and 28?  Or does he mean chop up the 1/8 and give Peralta a 2/50 covering 26/27?  Because that second option is ludicrous.

The initial thing I said was to rip it all up and turn it into 3/50-60ish.  3rd year being a player option.   So he'd get a raise this year while having 50+ mil guarantee in his pocket in emergency.  Only moves his FA back one year if all goes well and he doesn't get hurt.  He risks one more year before FA, Brewers risk he gets hurt and they're on the hook for all that but get to 'go for it' for two more years with him. He still hits FA in his low 30s to get someone else to pay him a lot while he ages. 

Of course I know its a long shot and that's why I said wild or 'bold prediction' like some articles do.  Some kind of thing like that is the only way I could see a compromise making sense. Can't imagine he'd want to move back his FA more than a year maaaaybe two. and no way we give him a long term big money deal.  But my main point was I think they have a good relationship and are going to try and come up with something, unlike say Burnes where you knew there was no relationship/effort. 

Potential lockout stuff is a whole other variable I don't know enough about to factor it in either way.

[Scooterfletcher]

On 10/27/2025 at 10:41 AM, tmwiese55 said:

The initial thing I said was to rip it all up and turn it into 3/50-60ish.  3rd year being a player option.   So he'd get a raise this year while having 50+ mil guarantee in his pocket in emergency.  Only moves his FA back one year if all goes well and he doesn't get hurt.  He risks one more year before FA, Brewers risk he gets hurt and they're on the hook for all that but get to 'go for it' for two more years with him. He still hits FA in his low 30s to get someone else to pay him a lot while he ages. 

Of course I know its a long shot and that's why I said wild or 'bold prediction' like some articles do.  Some kind of thing like that is the only way I could see a compromise making sense. Can't imagine he'd want to move back his FA more than a year maaaaybe two. and no way we give him a long term big money deal.  But my main point was I think they have a good relationship and are going to try and come up with something, unlike say Burnes where you knew there was no relationship/effort. 

Potential lockout stuff is a whole other variable I don't know enough about to factor it in either way.

I want the 1/8 for 2026 if we keep him.  If he wants to extend years 2027 and 2028 at 50 million or something close to that, I suppose we could do that.  But that’s a lot of money that might be better spent elsewhere.  And im certainly not giving him a player option.  A straight extension of 2/50 while keeping the 1/8 for 2026 isn’t super team friendly as is but likely just team friendly enough to warrant a serious discussion of a two year extension.

[titanrick]

14 minutes ago, Scooterfletcher said:

I want the 1/8 for 2026 if we keep him.  If he wants to extend years 2027 and 2028 at 50 million or something close to that, I suppose we could do that.  But that’s a lot of money that might be better spent elsewhere.  And im certainly not giving him a player option.  A straight extension of 2/50 while keeping the 1/8 for 2026 isn’t super team friendly as is but likely just team friendly enough to warrant a serious discussion of a two year extension.

I'm not seeing what Freddy has to gain by signing a 2 yr/50M extension beginning in 2027 when other teams will likely be offering 5 yr/150M.  Seems like the only way to get him to consider a smaller extension would be to change the remaining 1 yr/8M into something much better for him.  Otherwise, Peralta has nothing to gain.

[Scooterfletcher]

17 hours ago, titanrick said:

I'm not seeing what Freddy has to gain by signing a 2 yr/50M extension beginning in 2027 when other teams will likely be offering 5 yr/150M.  Seems like the only way to get him to consider a smaller extension would be to change the remaining 1 yr/8M into something much better for him.  Otherwise, Peralta has nothing to gain.

You could be right.   Tommy John always has to throw his name in contact negotiations though too.   If he gets hurt during the 1/8 final year or if he pitches like more of a 3/4 than a 1/2 in 2026, the security of locking in 50 million in 27 and 28 won’t look horrible.   It’s worth offering anyway.

Regardless, if you are right, the best solution is simple….trade him or enjoy his final year at 1/8 and take the comp pick.   Because tearing up the 1/8 to give him a bigger extension into the future would not be wise at all imo.

[tmwiese55]

Well, take the general framework I threw out.   Would you not give that offer to say Crochet, Snell, etc or other top pitchers who've been available lately?    That's generally our complaint or issue with FA, that we can only really do short term contracts in the right situation, so when they get a 6-7 year deal we simply can't do it. A 3/55ish deal is as low risk you can do for a proven pitcher.  Basically just saying for any big FA of the last few years almost every time we'd have said yes to 3/55ish but we know they'd never take it.  Here you have a situation where maybe he would or its at least worth asking the guy. Still expect a No but its worth a talk with him.

But yea, pitchers can always get hurt so its fair to just have a never give 20+ mil per year to a pitcher in MKE's situation.

[Scooterfletcher]

22 minutes ago, tmwiese55 said:

Well, take the general framework I threw out.   Would you not give that offer to say Crochet, Snell, etc or other top pitchers who've been available lately?    That's generally our complaint or issue with FA, that we can only really do short term contracts in the right situation, so when they get a 6-7 year deal we simply can't do it. A 3/55ish deal is as low risk you can do for a proven pitcher.  Basically just saying for any big FA of the last few years almost every time we'd have said yes to 3/55ish but we know they'd never take it.  Here you have a situation where maybe he would or its at least worth asking the guy. Still expect a No but its worth a talk with him.

But yea, pitchers can always get hurt so its fair to just have a never give 20+ mil per year to a pitcher in MKE's situation.

I may have misunderstood you at first.    I’d certainly tear up the 1/8 for a 3/55 if that’s on the table.   I thought you meant more along the lines of 3/75 to get him thru 2028.   That I wouldn’t do.   My bad for not reading more carefully.   This is worth exploring, though 1/8 and a comp pick or the right trade might still be the better move but that’s up to Arnold to decide.   So, good post and yes it’s worth exploring those parameters.

[Roderick]

To me, the only way we trade Peralta is if Woodruff gives a home town discount.  We need a staff anchor, and no one else is that.    

But you can't discount that some team will just blow us out of the water with a trade (and that is what it would take), especially if they know they can sign Peralta long-term.  If you get a young, cheap MLB bat and/or a young/cheap starter that is ready for MLB now .....