Burnes Unlikely to be Traded?

He be moved at the deadline 

Nah, we’ve seen this before.  First, they put it out there that player(s) are available. Then, they put it out that players(s) aren’t available.  It’s Arnold speak for player(s) are are available, but your going to pay a premium price to get  him. 

5 hours ago, Travisb72 said:

Nah, we’ve seen this before.  First, they put it out there that player(s) are available. Then, they put it out that players(s) aren’t available.  It’s Arnold speak for player(s) are are available, but your going to pay a premium price to get  him. 

I actually haven't seen this before. Could you make a comp? Who have we said is available, then said we're probably keeping, then dealt for a premium?

Hader is as close as I can get to this scenario, but that was a pretty shocking move and one we've(the FO) has explicitly stated was a mistake...or at least the type of move they made not fully appreciating the impact it'd have.

I wonder if they're a little extra motivated to beat the Cubs this year and that's playing any role. It shouldn't, but that's likely playing SOME role for Attanasio and the FO.

20 hours ago, clancyphile said:

I wonder if teams are trying to lowball the Brewers in the wake of the Bally blowup... thinking the Crew will be desperate to cut payroll.

I sincerely doubt there's any correlation between the two at all. 

20 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

I actually haven't seen this before. Could you make a comp? Who have we said is available, then said we're probably keeping, then dealt for a premium?

Hader is as close as I can get to this scenario, but that was a pretty shocking move and one we've(the FO) has explicitly stated was a mistake...or at least the type of move they made not fully appreciating the impact it'd have.

I wonder if they're a little extra motivated to beat the Cubs this year and that's playing any role. It shouldn't, but that's likely playing SOME role for Attanasio and the FO.

Come on now. You playing possum with me? You don’t think  good GM’s put players names out there then later put it out there that a player is not available to drive the negotiation price up?

27 minutes ago, Travisb72 said:

Come on now. You playing possum with me? You don’t think  good GM’s put players names out there then later put it out there that a player is not available to drive the negotiation price up?

 You said it was "Arnold speak." I'm asking when the Brewers have done this under Arnold OR Stearns tenure. 

When have they said player X was not available in trade(which, for the record, I'm not seeing they even said about Burnes) only to drive the price up and then trade him?

This seems more like fan speculation than how GMs actually operate. I don't think GMs play games like this. I think GMs have an idea if they want to trade a player or what it'll cost to give up a player and then a team either meets that price or they don't and the conversations for a player like Burnes take a long time to work out and dozens of calls going back and forth. 

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

I wonder if they're a little extra motivated to beat the Cubs this year and that's playing any role. It shouldn't, but that's likely playing SOME role for Attanasio and the FO.

I've wondered (hoped) that this will be the case for Attanasio this  year.  Sign Rhys Hoskins, and a starter and see if keeping the gang together for one more year leads to a bigger bite from the apple.

16 hours ago, bensheeps said:

I've wondered (hoped) that this will be the case for Attanasio this  year.  Sign Rhys Hoskins, and a starter and see if keeping the gang together for one more year leads to a bigger bite from the apple.

Yeah, I understand that line of thinking, I just think re-grouping and adding young pitching talent for '25 makes more sense. 

I am expecting the brewers to make a move in Nashville.

15 hours ago, reillymcshane said:

Of course they say this. The team wants maximum return for Burnes. If they aren't going to get it, they will hold on to him and see how 2024 goes - and sell at the deadline if need be. 

The off season is still so much in the early phase. We need to get a half dozen of the top arms off the market before people come calling - especially those who missed out on the top pitchers. 

The good part is the team doesn't have to sell Burnes. They still are a good club, and can run it back next year. So the club is saying 'no deal' unless someone really steps up. Just smart business. 

Right. There's no figurative gun to their head. They can sit back, wait for the Pitchers to fall off the market. They can even wait until early on into next year and into the deadline as was said in the article and re-evaluate.

Making a decision that it's probably best to trade Burnes doesn't mean accepting whatever is offered.

2 minutes ago, CheeseheadInQC said:

Did I miss something? Heyman's reasoning seems to be that with Burnes, the Brewers would still be among the favorites to win the division and that the Brewers have resisted the notion of a full tear down. He didn't even site what he was hearing, did he? Regardless, it has felt to me like the Brewers were open to trading him but didn't feel compelled to do so. Not sure this messaging is much different.

I don't think so. This feels consistent with EVERYTHING else with Heyman speculating we may be a bit more likely to keep him, at least until the ASB(then re-evaluate), that's it. 

This isn't some big about-face.