bill hAll Star

Additional money and key prospects. A trade for a TOR starter at any point is either a lock or at least sets off the final series of events to lock in the fact that we've decided that our window is 2018-2021. I have a hard time seeing the Brewers do anything serious 3-4 years from now if we've depleted our upper-tier of prospects and most of our currently controlled players are going to be getting older or leaving in 2021. Signing Cobb allows us to keep Burnes, Peralta, etc. for a potential future trade if we so choose or also as a backup option to either use in the next window of contention or as a wild card that maybe one of those guys develops into a stud. We can all celebrate that Chris Archer is only getting paid $7.5 million the next few years when we likely are close to capped out anyways and have no future after the Archer years. There's more than just "X player is getting paid Y amount" in analysis.

Somebody above me already addressed the idea that Wilkerson has proven nothing in the majors and his stuff may not play there, but what are you planning to do with the savings? Has Mark's ownership group invited you on to their new yachts that they'd be buying with it?

The reality of our market is that Mark probably is only willing to pay $120 million, tops, in a competitive year. To me, salary has always seemed like more of a year-to-year thing. You can do thinks like take a 3-4 year hiatus from big spending and use it to bolster future payroll as we just have, but there is still roughly a yearly budget. So, yes, on the surface, saving $10-15 million to potentially downgrade from Braun to Kemp would be not ideal. However, if we are operating under the premise that that is Mark's constraint, then you need to pick up on some nuance in this. Let's assume this rumor is legitimate for a moment. What if shedding Braun's 2020 salary is key in signing a good pitcher right now, because Mark fears being up against his cap if he signs Cobb tomorrow? Or, since we can probably assume that we'll still be going for it in 2020, would you rather be paying 36-year-old Braun $17 million with a mandatory $4 million buyout the following year or would you rather use that to bolster the team in another way? I think the best thing half of this board can do is to liberate itself from only being able to view player + contract = good or player + contract = bad. There are a lot of other angles involved. I definitely hear the argument of 2018 and 2019 Braun probably being a better player, but there is more to consider. I'd still want something more from the Dodgers to make the deal happen, but I try to look at the "good intentions" side of anything. Both teams have good motivations for this trade but all we're operating on is a binary response to "Ryan Braun for Matt Kemp."

My goal wasn't this "gotcha" moment to make Theo look bad. Moreso to point out that you can't take what a GM says publicly about their offseason strategy as fact. Slide that logic over to Stearns, him saying we are going to spring with the starters we have is probably misdirection to some degree. We'll add someone. Suter won't be the 5th starter to open the season barring injury or Woodruff being dreadful in ST. Got it...yes, I agree.

"But we have a lot of players who have reasonable salaries who contribute an awful lot who might put us in a positon to consider it going forward and in the future." He said that they have such a low payroll from other guys that going after guys like Darvish some/other years is an option. Sure, a contradiction that maybe they explored a trade first, so I guess I can connect that logic. But he definitely noted that they also have created a situation where they can go after bigger FAs.

So you are going to use minor league stats against Swihart but not even mention that Vogt (made the majors at 27) was older than the competition at just about every level and Swihart (majors at 23) was young at every level for the competition? Swihart will bet 26 during this season. Vogt hadn't sniffed the bigs yet by this age. Swihart has been jacked around pretty much his entire career. Also, Vogt can't make a throw to second base. Right, that's why I'm intrigued by Swihart. I wouldn't wager Swihart being a better hitter this year from the LH side of the plate, yet, though. I really didn't address defense at all. Vogt is really bad there so I'm assuming Swihart would be better.

What did Epstein say in that article that was contradictory?

I don't argue to have a large scouting report on Swihart beyond knowing his previous high prospect rating and so far uninspiring major league career, but is there any tangible stat or scouting report that suggests that he's an upgrade over a "pretty good" LH hitting catcher? I'm not sure about Vogt's place on the team basically as a platoon catcher, but he's probably an .800 OPS guy in Miller Park facing mostly RHP. I don't believe that Vogt will be an .800 OPS guy going forward. His career numbers against RHP indicate that he'll be about a mid .700's OPS guy. I think Swihart could replicate that plus give us even more defensive flexibility. Swihart can play C, OF, and 1B. He's also been rumored to have been working on 2B as well. He is out of options this spring so it will be interesting if he makes the Sox team. If he doesn't he'd be a nice pickup for our bench. Vogt was always much better on the road while in Oakland. His slugging was very low in home games. It's possible that he regresses and that he's getting older, but he OPSed about .800 with the Brewers last year. Unless he starts regressing due to age, I would expect he's an .800 OPS guy now that he's playing half of his games in Miller Park. Vogt came into the minors at a much later age, but he out-hit Swihart at every level. I don't doubt that Swihart could be a nice buy low option, but I'll believe it when I see it. I wouldn't mind the Brewers bringing him in if they believed in that premise, but if I was betting on 2018 performance hitting the baseball, I'm taking Vogt.

A lot of this is interesting, but while this makes sense for Kris Bryant, a lot of teams would wait even longer to call their guys up so as not to start that clock of doom. There could be an advanced stats way of doing this, but PCL/Colorado Springs would be horrifying. Say the Brewers called up Garrett Cooper (prior to the trade) in an emergency last year and started his clock. So their choices would be to cut him completely or to live with the fact that he was going to hit .330/.420/.600 in Colorado Springs and probably earn $5 million dollars for destroying the juiced up PCL/Colorado Springs while probably not being a good MLB player?

I don't argue to have a large scouting report on Swihart beyond knowing his previous high prospect rating and so far uninspiring major league career, but is there any tangible stat or scouting report that suggests that he's an upgrade over a "pretty good" LH hitting catcher? I'm not sure about Vogt's place on the team basically as a platoon catcher, but he's probably an .800 OPS guy in Miller Park facing mostly RHP.

Where do you think the pool of your proposed increased revenue sharing comes from? Also, with significantly less team control, players will still probably flock to the larger markets and/or build superteams even if pay is the same or slightly less. Also, with baseball being different with half of your MLB roster in a given year being guys that go up and down from the minors, how do you manage that with very small team control? You'd have teams getting every ounce of production they can out of guys in the majors while they should be developing in AA. That's good and bad for the players. You'd have a watered-down level of play for some teams because teams would be developing more guys in the majors. It would be just a strange mess of developing a player for 5 seasons in the minors and then, depending on payroll/cap situation, having to know that he's gone in 2-3 years via free agency or being forced to look for a trade because you're at the cap. Of course some teams might not be, but there would be a lot of weird situations where teams can't even keep the guys they've developed.

Yeah, and in this case, even though Boras is a jagoff, can you blame him a bit for sticking his feet in the sand? Maybe he's kinda screwing his players in certain cases as well, but how do those guys feel that they accidentally became free agents in the one terrible offseason for free agents? The agent has to try to fight for them. You can say that Boras and the clients should just take what they can get, but that means that ownership has won. Maybe ownership will eventually win, but Boras has to try to fight for his guys as well. Both are evil parties in a sense and half of the players may be greedy/evil as well. It's the agent's responsibility to properly assess the market and help players make the best decisions. That doesn't seem to be what's happening, mostly just whining/complaining/cries of collusion with nothing getting done. It's hard to know who's specifically at fault with the delayed market without knowing actual offers. Based on what Darvish signed for and what's been reported about him and others, the offers seem significant enough and not wildly unreasonable low balls. Also Boras has a reputation for being a "jagoff" as you put it, and there have been reported asking prices for his clients specifically that are wildly ridiculous. I imagine teams would line up to offer 1 year deals or even 2 year deals with an opt out after year 1 so these players can get in on the 2018-19 frenzy. The 2 year option mitigates some injury risk and lets players bet on themselves for one more year and hope to maximize their earnings. That remains to be seen. Obviously you're taking the "I'm a sensible guy" approach here, but while I think Jake Arrieta will be vastly overpaid in a baseball sense, this is his one chance to cash in. I won't cry over him only making $40 million instead of $130, but it does hurt the players at large if he just gives in. What if he gets hurt? Again, I'm not crying for Arrieta, but Boras has to at least try to get his client the standard, long contracts. He always does this by driving an obscene bargain, but if he gives in this offseason, what's to stop the owners from doing this every year? Obviously the market works out on the other end that eventually some owner would say "screw your collusion, I'm ponying up for Harper" but it will affect players down the line. I think you let things like "big market bias" and "this guy is a jagoff" cloud your judgment a bit. It may end up that he has to give in this offseason, but it isn't without consequence and while there is risk to it, he may have to try for his clients.

Significantly less team control, and a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing. Biggest obstacle would be big market teams rejecting as they would no longer have a significant advantage. Yes, that one I'd classify as decent but probably not feasible for a few reasons. As you state, the larger markets would cry. However, that is a practical sticking point. This isn't so much like the NBA or NFL. Markets matter a bit more in the MLB and it could truly hurt the league's earning power if the Yankees are continuously hamstrung. The NBA is a bit of a closer example though not perfect. The Knicks are stupid and the league is doing fine, but I do think that if all of the huge markets cannot pay bigger players in the MLB how much it would thrive financially if the league's goal is to keep upping profits/revenues every season. Player salaries would also be drained a bit by this so the players also may not like it. Huge markets bid and set major asking prices on players which drives up cost in the absence of a harder salary cap. A floor helps a bit, but in theory, the players could probably have a bit of a gripe there. They have to like the idea that Bryce Harper will have 10 suitors driving up the price on him and in turn, on player salaries down the line for the teams that miss out on him. How is the cap enforced? Is it like the NBA where the teams can keep going further and further into the luxury tax zone as long as they're willing to pay and keeping their own players? To an extent, that's what the large markets have already done the past few years.

But these aren't the only options out there. This is something written to show how poorly a system could be set up for small markets. OK, you propose one. I'm going to guess that I can find a way to either exploit loopholes or how it could be unreasonable/not feasible/really flaky within minutes.

And the luxury tax issue. You keep ignoring this but it is clearly obvious that it's in play unless one of these big markets decides to go into the season over the threshold. Boras is at fault, too. But in most other offseasons, things would probably find a middle ground. Also, as per the labor union - I think that the union itself is somewhat top-heavy. There have been a lot of labor complaints from career single A or AA guys that are making basically minimum wage and are not protected under most labor laws. I think the union was top heavy and key players negotiated the player side into their favor and a lot of the lower down minors players are making legitimate peanuts. This can also explain the idea that players 1-5 years into their career are generally underpaid. I agree on the luxury tax. I didn't address is because it's so obvious. Teams are getting under the threshold this year to pay for the super class of free agents next year. After signing these big free agents, they'll almost certainly be over the luxury tax for a handful of years with increasing penalties. Any team that doesn't get under the threshold this year will be at a competitive disadvantage either with the 2018-19 class, or in the future as the tax hits catch up to them. It also doesn't surprise me that teams would generally save a bit this year to spend a lot more next year on better players. I learned when I was a kid that sometimes you have to save money if you want nice things. I get that the general public doesn't have specific knowledge of negotiations, but it really boils down to a concept as simple as that. Teams saving to afford the mega class next year. Yeah, and in this case, even though Boras is a jagoff, can you blame him a bit for sticking his feet in the sand? Maybe he's kinda screwing his players in certain cases as well, but how do those guys feel that they accidentally became free agents in the one terrible offseason for free agents? The agent has to try to fight for them. You can say that Boras and the clients should just take what they can get, but that means that ownership has won. Maybe ownership will eventually win, but Boras has to try to fight for his guys as well. Both are evil parties in a sense and half of the players may be greedy/evil as well.

Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons? Definitely agree but that's not how things are structured now so I don't feel bad. Hope they figure out a way to pay players at their peak and balance small market interests. It does bother me when my team pays an aging player who doesn't produce though. The idea of a 36 yr old Arrieta...*shudder* I'm not saying I want to feel sad for the owners if they're saddled with unforeseen $40 million bills since they can probably afford it, but consider these scenarios: Option A: Players are basically on arbitration immediately and pay can skyrocket quickly. What happens to a small market team if they have rookie Mike Trout and some other stud rookie when both of those guys get a 1500% raise in year 2? Can ownership afford a guy that in year 2 has bumped up from $500k to $15 million dollars without truly planning for it? Sure, you can say that the owner reaped the rewards of having a young, star player and that they could've maybe known this was coming, but that could really throw some crazy salary situations in there. What happens if the player quickly gets hurt or regresses? Who loses pay to balance all of this out? Option B: Young players are free agents really early. Goodbye good, young players for small markets. The Yankees and Dodgers will own all of them if they don't already. Option C: Players can negotiate huge deals basically when they come up to the majors or very early. This is the old NFL #1 pick conundrum. Bryce Harper maybe could've held out swinging a bat in the majors until the Nats agreed to pay him $200 million over 6 years. Sure, that may have actually worked out, but what about all of the busts? Would Mark Prior or Matt Harvey or even larger highly touted busts have been worth that massive investment before they ever stepped on the diamond or after only 1 good season? How would some longstanding vet that started his career slower feel about that? This isn't going to be as easy as some think.

I know the question wasn't to me but what a loaded question. I mean, why would it bother us regular joes that they guys are being paid at worst, a half million dollars to play a game? Now, that doesn't mean I am anti-player making ton's of money but it is my first reaction to your question. The next part is that these players unionized and had a say in how their pay would be structured. They know damn well what they are getting into as a pro baseball player. If they don't like how little they are paid in the minor leagues, go on strike. If they don't like how much they are getting paid their first few years in the league, argue for it and go on strike if need be. I am all for these millionaire/billionaire owners paying these guys what they are "worth" to play a game but I will not feel bad for them one minute out of my life for what they get paid to play a game. This is the best part of your post. The players unionized and generally agreed to the lower salary structure early through CBA. Is the structure dated? Absolutely. But it is what it is at this point. The market forces are working. Free agency tends to work in a trickle-down fashion, with the best players signing first and lower tier players signing after. The holdup this year is wild asking prices by top tier free agents and Boras having so many and having all his clients hold out. He's singlehandedly destroying the free agent market for lower tier players. And the luxury tax issue. You keep ignoring this but it is clearly obvious that it's in play unless one of these big markets decides to go into the season over the threshold. Boras is at fault, too. But in most other offseasons, things would probably find a middle ground. Also, as per the labor union - I think that the union itself is somewhat top-heavy. There have been a lot of labor complaints from career single A or AA guys that are making basically minimum wage and are not protected under most labor laws. I think the union was top heavy and key players negotiated the player side into their favor and a lot of the lower down minors players are making legitimate peanuts. This can also explain the idea that players 1-5 years into their career are generally underpaid.

I'm still not convinced as to what extent that teams are "smarter." We'll talk after next offseason when we see if the Yankees sign Donaldson with the 20% reset penalty and also give Gio Gonzalez a 4 year contract because they've already gone over the mark. Or if the Red Sox reset their counter this year, miss out on the biggest names, and settle on a 5 year deal for Drew Pomeranz or Garrett Richards. Teams are definitely getting smarter but I think this luxury tax pseudo collusion, pseudo temper tantrum that the owners may be putting up to reset the % penalty may make them look like they've all collectively become enlightened on these contracts at the same time. They're definitely smarter now than they were 5 or 10 years ago, but let's see what happens next year when everyone is in the bidding again and people get desperate and pay up for consolation prizes after missing on the big names. Fair enough, I'm sure the agents/players won't have any problem with teams overpaying for consolations prizes that everyone knows won't perform up to contract expectations. Right, but it's going to be very hard to find a happy landing spot. If you shift the pay up a few years earlier, you're going to see some teams sign themselves into oblivion with some young, relatively unproven players or teams like the Brewers having some heavy payrolls when they rebuild with prospects. You might have a situation like the NFL before regulated draft pick costs when veteran QBs were angry that Jamarcus Russell negotiated $50 million while they're a 5 year productive vet that has totaled $8 million. Now the pendulum has swung back. People are laughing at Stafford and Jimmy G getting record contracts while Carson Wentz and Jared Goff are making very modest amounts to be just as productive or better. I'm sure there's a better solution, but in almost any situation, you'll have underpaid and overpaid players and the smart and rich teams will exploit that. Personally, for the most part, I rarely associate my value or personal feelings of a player with their pay. I know that's what the market dictated in most cases. Matt Garza was not worth $12.5 million last year but he was also not worth $400k in 2008 or 2009 when he threw 180 and 200 innings with a 3.8 ERA. Also, I understand that the Brewers signed him to a substantial contract because their only other avenues of acquiring a [hopefully] good pitcher were to let one come up in their farm system (they had none) or to trade for one (would cost substantial prospects). The Brewers had a surplus/slot of salary and risked it on Matt Garza, knowing that underpaying guys like Jonathan Lucroy and Gomez allowed them to make such a move. In the football example, I understand that the Lions overpaid Matt Stafford because there were no other options to keep them as a fringe playoff/longshot Super Bowl team. I also know that in 3-4 years, he will be the 10th-15th highest paid quarterback. That's how all of this stuff works. In all cases, the best option for the franchise is to continue grooming young, cheap, replacements. In such cases, you are still only saving money to: A. Make more money for your owner or B. Likely overpay a different position of need via free agency or trade absorption

I'm still not convinced as to what extent that teams are "smarter." We'll talk after next offseason when we see if the Yankees sign Donaldson with the 20% reset penalty and also give Gio Gonzalez a 4 year contract because they've already gone over the mark. Or if the Red Sox reset their counter this year, miss out on the biggest names, and settle on a 5 year deal for Drew Pomeranz or Garrett Richards. Teams are definitely getting smarter but I think this luxury tax pseudo collusion, pseudo temper tantrum that the owners may be putting up to reset the % penalty may make them look like they've all collectively become enlightened on these contracts at the same time. They're definitely smarter now than they were 5 or 10 years ago, but let's see what happens next year when everyone is in the bidding again and people get desperate and pay up for consolation prizes after missing on the big names.

Your Harpers and Trouts, young and elite, I don't mind getting these monster contracts. It's the 32 yr old Arrietas of the world, who will never earn their contract yet feel entitled, which bother me. Does it also bother you that basically every player that reaches Arrieta's point has been vastly underpaid in the context of production for their first 5 or 6 seasons?

Here is why I think this is the best time for the Brewers to spend on a pitcher, if they ever do. Let's just say Arrieta gets a 5/$125 deal with an opt-out early in it. Plug in Lynn or Cobb for less if Arrieta doesn't work. Reason 1 for signing a free agent now: None of the heavy hitters are bidding now that the Cubs have hit the threshold for Darvish. All of the big hitters are sitting this out at the lux tax threshold which is deflating prices and giving the Brewers a fighting chance. Reason 2 for signing a free agent right now: If it blows up, the damage is mostly done by the time it matters (the next window after a retool/rebuild). Reason 3 for signing a free agent right now: There are not a large amount of Brewers that I see needing money for in 2021/2022. A lot of contributors are late-prime guys like Shaw, Knebel, Thames, Pina, Anderson, Nelson. A lot of these guys are probably bigger risks than Arrieta if they are even effective by they hit their age ~32 free agency as guys like Knebel and Shaw will. Here are the ways it could play out: Scenario A: FA pitcher is great, current Brewer crop is great: Good. You took a good risk. Even if he struggles in the last year or two of his contract, you took a shot in a competitive window. Scenario B: FA pitcher is great, current Brewer crop is a bust: You can probably trade the FA pitcher. You'll have a 2-3 year window to wait it out and find the right trade as the Brewers will be retooling. Scenario C: FA pitcher is a bust, current Brewer crop is great: This is the bad one. Maybe you can't sign the reliever to get you over the top next year. Also, not signing the FA this offseason means you probably are just saving that money to take on the next Arrieta. Of course it could be used for a bunch of smaller deals, but you could just as easily miss on another big acquisition. Also, since we didn't go for Archer or Stroman, at least we know that Burnes or Peralta are still there as other wild cards to get us over the top. Scenario D: FA pitcher is a bust, current Brewer crop is a bust: We'll be retooling in 2019 and 2020 and will be selling off the Shaw/Knebel/Santana types while hoping that Hiura, Hader, Burnes can get it done in the next window. Cain and FA pitcher will be on the books for 2021 and 2022, but otherwise long term salary is malleable again when we try again. I know it would be bad to sign a guy just to sign someone given all of the above here, but I do think this is the time if there is one. If not this year, then next (but FA is much more complicated next year).

I would tend to believe that the Brewers are not the type of team that can or will sign Arrieta and maybe shouldn't. That said, this is a special-case offseason. None of the other big market teams are in play. The Yankees, Dodgers, now Cubs, Red Sox, Angels, Rangers, Nationals (they are in on him, but they may be avoiding the threshold as well) are all out on the bidding. This does present an opportunity if the Brewers so choose.

My favorite part about him leaving here because his feelings were hurt by a few people was that he has taken refuge in a place that spends his time ripping people that get offended over small matters.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you're saying here is that you're basically hoping the brewers don't do anything until the end of these contracts they already have on the books? Any decent starting pitching on the free agent market is going to be pricey, whether that's now, or 5 years from now. In 5 years actually, you'll probably be paying more for worse pitching, therefore putting the brewers in a bigger hole. If you want to attempt to trade for pitching, you're gonna be giving up a lot in your farm system in the off-season, and even more in the middle of the season. Cobb and Lynn are commanding a salary pretty similar to Arrietta I'm sure, otherwise they would've signed already. This free agency period is probably your best method of signing a pitcher, so which do you want to take? They'll all have similarish contracts, Cobb, Lynn, or Arrietta? I'll take Jake No, since the Brewers decided Hader would stay in the 'pen, they need to add a starting pitcher. I would prefer we do something along the lines of a Santana-for-Salazar trade, and I even like the rumored Cotton pickup if the price is right. That might not be as big of a "win now" move as signing an expensive free agent, but I think it would allow for us to still be competitive while maintaining some flexibility for future years. Adding another expensive 30-something could hamstring us if they decline and we're paying $60M+ per year to three anchors. Trading for someone like Archer sounds great, but I think the prospect cost (in addition to what we gave up for Yelich) would gut our farm too much. So I think the best move when considering both now and the future is to trade from the group of Santana, Broxton, Thames, Aguilar to find a young, controllable starter. Not looking for a star, just someone who can give you decent innings this year with some upside potential going forward. I can see the thought of maintaining a bit more flexibility for the trade deadline or next year, but at some point, we're going to have to make a plunge. Maybe Santana-for-Salazar is all we need to be a serious contender. I'm not buying that, but of course it's possible (not suggesting that that is your preferred method). The issue is that say you make that Santana (the rest of your list has very little value) for controllable starter trade...that probably still doesn't move the needle. I very much get your idea of seeing how that goes and then maintaining flexibility to make one more move...but that one more move is going to be the same thing: either overpaying someone like Arrieta or dumping half of our prospects into someone like Archer at the deadline. I like the idea of Arrieta or Lynn or Cobb now. It's an overpay, but we now have placed our last chip on the table right now. We can always shuffle the deck with some trades, but now we can go into 2021 with only short Cain/Arrieta (in this example) contracts remaining. We are effectively going "all in" without messing with our prospects and if we have to reconfigure and try this all over again in 2021, we will not have a bad long-term outlook.

http://albethke.blogspot.com/ I can only be heard on Al's Rambling's now. The HH19 Twitter's out there are all fakes. Man, that's a cauldron of takes over there.