bill hAll Star

You were seriously asking them to call around other billionaires and ask if they have cash under the couch cushions to pay an extra player. Use the house analogy, there's a good chance that signing Grandal adds nothing to the franchise value and does not boost profits nearly enough to offset it. And you also need to get out of the Brewers silo. If you think the Brewers could've/should've spent 4/$73, why can't the Yankees or Angels, who are even richer in ownership and should also be benevolently going into debt to make the fans excited, go to 5/$100? If the Brewers should go to a $200 million payroll, why not $400-500 million out of the Yankees and Dodgers? Do you see where this is going?

This line of thinking is how bad teams stay bad for such a long time. Just because you can afford a player doesn't mean the contract is what the team needs. That is not the contract the Brewers need right now. The team does have finite resources they can spend and this is most likely not a productive way for them to spend it in the long run. How do you know this to be true? If Robert Murray's story is true, the Brewers dropped out because of price, not contract length. They were ok with 4 years of Grandal. We don't know if the Brewers are profitable or not, or if they even should be. We know that they don't NEED to be. The owner could afford to operate at a loss if he wanted to. I just don't like shopping at the Dollar Store, when it's not clear to me that they must. Admittedly, it's super early in the offseason, and they could have lots of surprises in store. But they have a lot of payroll flexibility and if they are serious about winning, then they'll have to pay somebody. And Grandal seemed like a fine fit last year. There is an entire league of owners that don't operate at a loss by and large. Attanasio and the ownership group are rich but he: A. Needs to make a profit for his ownership group. B. Just because he's made a billion dollars on value since buying the team doesn't mean he has that money in his pocket right now just waiting to spend on a 3rd starting pitcher. We all enjoy baseball - specifically major league baseball. It's not a terrible take to ask/wish that the owners spend more of their cash on the players...but...if you have this much of a hardened take, what's the point of following? Follow another league, sport, or activity. It's not going to change...these are the parameters. Why let this ruin a hobby for you? And to reiterate again - I would be shocked if they don't at least spend up to that $120-130 million range.

Just because they chould doesn't mean they should. The Brewers are lucky to have so many fans who are concerned about them getting a good deal on their player contracts. We don't do that with anything else in our lives. We don't concern ourselves that the furnace repair company is paying their workers too much. Or the barista at the coffee shop. But somehow, despite never opening their books, in a league without a salary cap, and for a franchise that has grown in value by $1Billion since he bought the team, lots of good and loyal fans fret and stew that Mark A not spend too much on the players he wants us to root for. I am more interested in the Brewers winning games than I am in whether or not they do so at a bargain. Good lord, dude. This was the first major signing of the offseason. If you want Attanasio to be a benevolent billionaire and go up to $400 million this year, none of us will be alive for this event. If you have reasonable expectations...Attanasio actually overspends relative to the market. The Brewers are generally the ~#15 payroll in the league when they're contending and they are one of the smallest markets. All of 2008-2014 and then in 2019 they were in this territory and will likely continue to do so for 2-5 more years. It won't be Grandal but they will definitely spend this offseason.

If there is one thing that would shock me it would be Attanasio cutting costs and slashing payroll to pocket cash during a competitive window of the Brewers.

I think if the Sox sign another pitcher or two (they still have a very low payroll) they can definitely be competitive. They need Eloy to take a step, but: Robert, Yasmani, Eloy, Abreu, Anderson, maybe Madrigal, Moncada is a pretty formidable offense. Giolito needs help in the rotation. They have some decent bullpen pieces.

The White Sox also had been running a very low payroll and this might finally have been their time to strike. Understood. But I'm done counting coins on behalf of the Brewers Front Office. They could have afforded Grandal at that salary. And with the assumption that Arcia is returning at SS, it's important to get offense from other positions, and Grandal did that really well last year. I will be shocked if the Brewers are not running a $120+ million payroll next year. If they aren't by opening day (barring some weird rebuild-on-the-fly that is universally accepted (but won't happen)), I will be in line with you.

I would imagine that historically OFers have been able to maintain productivity into their mid-30s at a higher rate than catchers. I'm sure that was a line of thinking. But yeah, the Brewers will be hoping for a Cain offensive rebound in 2020, or he will be a case study on how expensive long-term contracts can hurt mid-market ballclubs. The Brewers can take chances on longterm deals, but they need to be limited and smart. I really don't think these contracts "hurt" if they are planned correctly. If you've got 5-6 great players pre-arbitration and you sign a guy for 4-5 years and he's great for 2-3 years, that is really good. Say Grandal is dead weight 3 years from now after being productive for the first half of his contracts similar to Cain if he falls off another cliff in 2021 or something. The only thing that they are blocking these teams from doing is...signing more overpriced veterans. I'd assume that if the White Sox are really good and are dying to sign Nick Madrigal to a pre-arbitration extension that they can and will do so with or without Grandal's contract.

With the DH, this is a VERY good deal for the Sox. Grandal catches two years, DHs the next two. I'd figured about $80 million - and that included Yasmani as the primary 1B for the latter half of the deal as Feliciano/Henry/Fry forced their way up. Paying nearly $20 million per year for an aging 1B/DH is an extremely irresponsible use of funds. The White Sox better hope he can be their primary catcher for the next four years. The Brewers did the same thing with Cain. It's possible that Grandal is a part-time catcher 3 or 4 years from now but if he delivers for 2-3 years, they'll take it. They had an insanely low payroll with guys like Eloy, Giolito, Luis Robert, Yoan, etc. all making peanuts. This is the time to strike and try to compete. They could make 2-3 more massive signings and still run a payroll barely more than what the Brewers are.

The White Sox also had been running a very low payroll and this might finally have been their time to strike.

I'll get in before anyone else: Please, no, we should not trade for James McCann. Unless he is a juiced ball mastermind, he will not put up anything close to a .359 BABIP again this year.

I am aware that it isn't going to happen for the Brewers but Wheeler is the one guy I'd pay up for. He's legitimately worth it IMO but I know that we're not going to pony up for a big $ pitcher and probably will do Moose/Grandal/cheaper pitcher.

Agree here. This isn't just the MLB throwing darts at the wall making rules, there was unfortunately abuse. The Brewers were somewhat a culprit as well. They were? I felt like they didn't take advantage of the 10 day IL nearly enough if anything. I can't give you specific examples but it does feel like they shuttled the bottom of their bullpen quite a bit with "shoulder tightness" the past few years, even with the 15-day IL. It has become somewhat standard practice in the majors but it felt like the Brewers participated quite a bit as a bullpen ball team.

The 10 day IL was being abused by some clubs regarding pitcher movement (LA Dodgers for example) so pushing back to 15 days for pitchers legitimizes it. The 10 day still remains for position player usage at this point... Agree here. This isn't just the MLB throwing darts at the wall making rules, there was unfortunately abuse. The Brewers were somewhat a culprit as well.

Mejia had an .866 OPS in the 2nd half of the season and an .831 OPS away from Petco and he's only 24. Lamet was becoming dominant as he progressed from his recovery from TJ surgery in the final months of last year. I am one that realizes how important Hader and certain relievers are in today's game and are vital to how Stearns/Counsell manage a game...but I'd take that package and run. I'm not sure the Padres would offer it. If those concerns about Mejia's other catching skills are worse than I think, then maybe I'd have some second thoughts...but otherwise you could have a top of the rotation piece and a stud, young catcher for about 5 years each. I'd do it.

I also think that there is a finite shelf-life of a window for a small market team that is not as cutthroat as Cleveland (trading away good players for the future when you are contending). So while I wouldn't always advocate this, say we sign Grandal to a 4 year deal and Moose to 3. Say the next 2 years we're a playoff team and Cain, Grandal, Moose to some extent are all productive players. In 2022, the bottom falls out and all 3 guys begin to fall apart. We trade Yelich and Hader both for a good set of prospects. So in 2023, we're looking at a rebuilding year and our books have...Yasmani Grandal for 1 more season at $15 million. Obviously there is risk in the short-term if all of these guys fall off sooner-than-later, but if we've got the money I'd rather go for it while we have Christian Yelich than say, "yeah, let's just do Tucker Barnhart at $5 million/year for 2 years because I'm worried about these contracts in 3 years." I think we may have 2-3 years left in this window, take your shot. We're at a point where if things go south with veterans, we'd be rebuilding anyways and it will just be Mark paying these guys money on rebuilding teams with an outside shot of trading them away for some value. What do I care?

I don't know, it's just a cheat code to these situations. Also, yes, Hader is more talented than Rogers...but with his home run issues some might say that Taylor Rogers could be argued as a safer pitcher. Maybe he can't put up a season close to Hader's 2018 season but I would bet on Rogers being a top 10 type reliever. Yes I know it's a fun offseason discussion discussion but it's kinda unrealistic if I can say that I'll start the offseason off by dealing Brent Suter for Trevor Story and then follow it up with Grisham and a prospect for Shane Bieber. That makes the offseason look pretty easy. People throw those types of proposals out in this area all the time. It's like a kid window shopping 3 weeks before Christmas. It is very likely that none of this is going to happen, but the speculation is a blast. The term "realistic" is always subjective as well. Yes, that's fine. But enough people have peddled the idea, "the Dodgers should get a reliever for the playoffs" that every trade proposal on here is lopsided. The one where someone suggested that the Dodgers may offer us 3 of their B-level prospects for Hader was the only realistic one. There are always some lopsided trades proposed on here, this Dodger one has just spread like wildfire due to some weird groupthink on the matter. Anyways, fire away, I'll let people continue with the speculation even if unrealistic. The Brewers will probably have an offseason similar to what most are proposing other than not having a prime, all-star SS like Seager or Lux gift-wrapped to us. The perfect example of why the Dodgers would not do this: The Dodgers can simply sign Drew Pomeranz and Betances. They have the cash. So they could get Pomeranz, Betances, and Gavin Lux for 6 seasons. If they make the trade they'd have Josh Hader and a hole in their system behind Seager/Turner/Hernandez/Taylor which is breaking up soon. They could go out and sign Gregorious but I'd take Lux + Pomeranz/Betances (or name your top-end relievers they should sign).

Rogers is a very good reliever, but that guy is much closer to Brent Suter stuff-wise than he is Hader. Picking out a reliever with similar stats doesn't mean they are similar relievers with similar upsides. I'd love to have Rogers, though, and would give up a lot of value for him if the Twins were selling. Honestly, I don't see why you're so hellbent on poo-pooing every trade scenario that involves Hader to the Dodgers. It's the middle of November, and we're in the dead point of the offseason when it comes to player movement. It's fun to talk about what an elite talent like Hader would bring back in a deal, and the Rumors/Proposals area is the perfect place to do that. I don't think anyone is saying that Hader is going to be dealt ... I personally say it has less than a 5% chance of happening. But you never know. I don't know, it's just a cheat code to these situations. Also, yes, Hader is more talented than Rogers...but with his home run issues some might say that Taylor Rogers could be argued as a safer pitcher. Maybe he can't put up a season close to Hader's 2018 season but I would bet on Rogers being a top 10 type reliever. Yes I know it's a fun offseason discussion discussion but it's kinda unrealistic if I can say that I'll start the offseason off by dealing Brent Suter for Trevor Story and then follow it up with Grisham and a prospect for Shane Bieber. That makes the offseason look pretty easy.

Alright, I know I'm jumping into this topic too much, but would you guys do Hiura for Taylor Rogers? I'm going to assume the answer is 90-95% "no." That is roughly equivalent to Lux for Hader and therefore I really doubt the Dodgers do it. You can spin it the same way. "Well, yeah, the Brewers lost in the playoffs 2 years in a row because of their bullpen. Brewers need to get antsy and try to fix that problem now." The Dodgers may not "need" Lux this year but they will soon...and either way, he's an upgrade over the current 2B and may be the future SS and they'd slide Seager over to 3B.

Except the Dodgers haven't won 3 of the last 6 World Series, so comparing them to the 2007 Pats doesn't really work. If Brady was still looking for his first ring, I would bet the Pats would have taken a few more drastic personnel choices following their loss to the Giants to ruin their perfect year. There's always risk when dealing assets for a high value player. Hell, the Cubs gave up a boatload for Chapman, but I'd be willing to bet they'd do the same thing again. Again, you make a terrific argument, but I think it is a mistake to dismiss the idea that the Dodgers make a move like that as impossible. Sure, the Dodgers could get antsy. I'd argue they'd do it closer to the deadline, though. If I'm the Dodgers front office and I'm in this situation you speak of, I'm so much better than the division that I would just wait until late July to make the move. Maybe that means Hader isn't on the table but there are probably extra salary dump guys or just 3 month rentals I could get.

As noted in the other thread, the Dodgers' entire veteran infield will be gone soon. Seager may or could be part of the next wave, but Lux is necessary. Seager is still very young and therefore very valuable. Anyone can be "the difference." It is just a basic fan thing to say, "well they lost because of a bullpen malfunction, better trade everything for a perceived good reliever." Like I said, if the Dodgers are really that concerned about their bullpen (it was great in the regular season), go out and sign the best guy on the market this year and trade some bags of baseballs for 4 Daniel Hudsons at the deadline. The Dodgers will continue to churn out a deep, dominant system that they can supplement with loads of cash. If they win the division 5 more times, odds are, they'll finally break through (see: Nats). This is counter intuitive to that process. And how many World Series titles has their process won them so far? I'm not saying you aren't on to something. Heck, the Dodgers may continue to operate business as usual. They will continue to make billions whether they win a title or not. But they may just have to reach into that deep farm system and use some of those guys as currency at some point to improve a weakness. Because the "sign and expensive reliever and deal for "ehh" guys at the deadline" approach just hasn't worked. Do I think they will trade for Hader this offseason. No, not really. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them. The baseball playoffs are incredibly fluky as we all know. I'd rather get to 10 more playoffs with home field advantage than to sell off 2 of those chances for Josh Hader. Imagine the Dodgers flip just one of those games in the World Series. Now the Astros may go down in history as the ultimate chokers. Obviously the end game and goal is rings. When judging how well a team's process is, it sounds weird to say, but I would argue removing championships from the discussion in baseball. The Nats have not mortgaged any major assets in trades over the past few years and their number magically came up this year because they kept at it. For a smaller market I would say that maybe you do have to put all of your eggs in a basket. The Dodgers are one of the smartest organizations in the league and just because some weird stuff has happened in the playoffs does not mean they should stray from that process.

To me, this would be like the Patriots looking at the tape when they went 18-0 and then lost in the Super Bowl and saying, "our right guard played like crap (after playing pretty well all season). Let's trade 3 first round picks for the best right guard in the league." Nope. They continued the smart process and kept giving themselves more chances to win in the playoffs. The Dodgers are at an advantage because they almost never have to send away massive hauls of prospects to get an elite player. If they want one, they can just buy one with money. I understand that right now it is possible that there is no Josh Hader out there unless Chapman hits the market. But you also have to remember how volatile relievers are. Remember how dominant Andrew Miller was? That's over. Betances may be shot due to injury. I personally hope and expect Hader to be dominant for the rest of his Brewers tenure but it's also possible that they trade away key pieces of their future for Josh Hader and Josh Hader blows out his arm or stays with his July/August struggles next year.

Counterpoint, as long as we are talking hypotheticals - Dealing Lux or Seager isn't going to cost that team future division titles. They are stacked offensively with young talent. But those 8 playoff innings from Josh Hader may very well be the difference between a World Series title, and blowing the NLCS. But perhaps they are completely happy cakewalking to an NL West title every year, and that's it? As noted in the other thread, the Dodgers' entire veteran infield will be gone soon. Seager may or could be part of the next wave, but Lux is necessary. Seager is still very young and therefore very valuable. Anyone can be "the difference." It is just a basic fan thing to say, "well they lost because of a bullpen malfunction, better trade everything for a perceived good reliever." Like I said, if the Dodgers are really that concerned about their bullpen (it was great in the regular season), go out and sign the best guy on the market this year and trade some bags of baseballs for 4 Daniel Hudsons at the deadline. The Dodgers will continue to churn out a deep, dominant system that they can supplement with loads of cash. If they win the division 5 more times, odds are, they'll finally break through (see: Nats). This is counter intuitive to that process.

I really just don't see the Dodgers trading for Hader unless it's from their lower-ceiling tier of prospects. Lux, Seager, etc. are more important. They're going to win that division by 10+ games again so just trade for relievers at the deadline. Don't give up assets that routinely win you the division by 10 games for 8 playoff innings of Josh Hader.

I haven't looked all the way around the league, but I'm also assuming there might be some arby casualties. Cron may get non-tendered. Guys like that will either be available for cheap or will at least depress the price of Thames given greater supply.

I'm personally not biting on his likely lucky or fluky MLB stats. He has talent/potential, but he has not really hit well at all in the minors. He's projected for a .687 OPS next year. Maybe he's got potential but the Jays would still be smart to make someone pay for that potential.