KeithStone53151

Don't forget when working through salaries, there are over 7 million worth of incentives available between 3 players(logan, gallardo, jeffress).

The general consensus is, for a top tier talent you should get a potential top tier talent in the form of a prospect back. The Pirates got solid talent, much of it at the mlb level, but nothing spectacular. More of a retooling trade than a rebuilding trade. This move makes more sense if someone going to Pittsburgh in the trade takes it to another level, or if Cole's trend of regression continues and he doesn't put it together as is expected. He posted a 4.2ish ERA last year in a very pitcher friendly park and generally wasn't dominant. Now he's going to more hitter friendly conditions and has to face a DH instead of a pitcher every start. I personally don't think this was a terrible return. Pittsburgh is probably a better team today than they were before the trade, they just didn't get much for high ceiling prospects.

No offense to our beat writers, but they kind of suck when it comes to rumors etc. Rumors/Big news always comes from the other teams local writers or a Rosenthal type. That's absolutely true that the national guys tend to break news on executed or just about to be executed trades/FA signings. I personally think our beat writers do have a good sense on general strategy of the front office. It's part of why I'm softening on my "Hader will start" and going with more of a "Hader should start". You can disagree if you want, the beat writers absolutely could be wrong...or maybe they are right, but a perfect storm of potential moves lines up for Stearns and he pulls the trigger...or maybe just the small obvious moves happen. I hope Stearns doesn't get too carried away in trying to be creative. These other GM's are sharp guys, it isn't like there are 29 Dombrowski's to take advantage of.

I don't agree with that at all. You kick the extra point so you're down 11, needing TD/2pt and a FG rather than needing two TDs. That seems like a no-brainer actually. You always want to avoid dong "more than necessary" until you have to. Otherwise you're always making up for what you failed to do earlier. It's really the same thing as college coaches who start chasing the 2 point conversions way too early in games. The situation is different if it were midway through the second quarter...at that point I would agree to take the PAT, but usually this is a 3rd or early 4th quarter situation. Your odds already aren't good and your scoring opportunities will be very limited. The situation you avoid by going for 2 early is making the wrong decision later on in the game. Let's say you take the extra point...down 11...and on your next possession have 4th and 2 at the 30 early in the 4th quarter. What do you do? If it's 12 you obviously go for it. If it's 10 you probably kick the field goal, which you probably should do down 11 as well. But then let's say you score a touchdown in the final 2 minutes but miss the 2 point conversion. You can't go back in time and decide to go for it on that 4th and 2. And as I noted above, at that point in the game you pretty much have to shut down the other offense to have a chance. The other team kicking a field goal after your first touchdown, regardless of the decision, doesn't have an overly negative impact as it remains a 2 score game. A touchdown probably is a dagger.

I'm not sure if I follow this, but if the Rays trade Archer, even if they have some decent young players, I don't see them buying a prime veteran in return...they're going into the tank if they deal Archer. I tend to disagree with this. They have a couple good pitching prospects coming up and a fairly full rotation. They have more issues with run scoring than run prevention. Maybe they do intend to rebuild instead of re-tool, but I wouldn't fully discount shaw to TB as a possibility.

For what it's worth, the brewers beat writers have generally been pessimistic about us making a big free agent signing. I have to assume they know more than we do, maybe getting off the record comments. They both also suspect hader is headed for the bullpen, which would be very disappointing in my opinion.

I think the defense was better this year than the last few, and probably an average defense. It's just hard to defend when the other team has the ball 40-45 minutes of the game because the offense can't sustain drives(which would have been different with Rodgers at qb. Guys clearly wore down, we also had injury issues. I'm not going to try to argue that our defense was a top 10 defense, or better than any of the remaining 4 defenses...it wasn't. But it wasn't as bad as it is being portrayed.

I've been saying for years, that every head coach needs a 16 year old kid with 20,000 games of madden under his belt to help manage these types of situations. It really isn't difficult at all. The Pittsburgh game, down 10 you generally go for the field goal once you get to a 40ish yarder(in madden you'd do 55ish, but that kick is also 99% in madden). In that specific case, getting down so close to the end zone on the big play to Bryant, I'd probably try a fade route(or other quick route) or 2 first before kicking it on 3rd down. Those plays don't take long(4 seconds each), and Pittsburgh has some of the best athletes in the NFL. There would have been enough time to have a play or 2 to get into field goal range if they got the miracle onside kick. The other one that literally every single coach gets wrong, is when they score a touchdown when down 18. You always go for 2. If you get it, great you're down 10. If not, you are down 12 and you KNOW you need 2 touchdowns. It avoids being down 11 and then missing the 2 pointer later on...thus needing 4 scores. This type of thing is like breathing to anyone who's played a significant amount of Madden, but almost every coach screws it up. Maybe a run of younger head coaches will help trim down these blatant errors.

I can't imagine Allard/Soroka moving for pretty much anyone. Both guys have had frontline starter written all over them for every moment of their careers, and they aren't far off from making an impact at the MLB level. That's not to say we can't get a good pitching prospect. That team is so stacked with SP, that even getting the 3rd or 4th best pitching prospect would be fantastic for Shaw.

I've seen Derby pitch in AA, I think he'll be a very solid reliever...I don't think he winds up in the rotation at the MLB level. I also disagree on Peralta, you weren't sure but I'm convinced he'll be a back end bullpen guy. I'm down on Diplan and don't think he makes it, but if he does it's likely in the bullpen. Undersized RH pitchers starting at the MLB level are the exception, not the rule. I naturally tend to pencil guys like this in as relievers right away in my head until/unless they prove otherwise every step of the way.

I think this is being reported widely enough that these types of moves might actually happen. I guess I don't mind exploring this type of move, but I don't have a lot of optimism that it's going to work out how we want at any position. This is a bit of a unique offseason in that so many big market clubs aren't willing to spend, but I just don't see us getting the talent I think we'd need to get in order for a set of coordinated moves to make sense. With the Yankees, I wonder if we could also take on a bad contract to get better prospects in a Shaw trade. Not Ellsbury obviously, but maybe Gardner as the 4th outfielder if he can move enough other outfielders? Though I've gotten the impression from prior trades that the Yankees either rip off a team in a trade or don't trade at all(I suspect that's why they didn't get Cole), so I'm even less optimistic about making something work with them even if it makes all the sense in the world on paper.

I could see either 4/110 with a vesting option or 5/125 with no option. I don't think it goes higher than that.

Nobody questions the tools and talent for Brinson. But tools and talent don't always equal production (see Jason Heyward). He seemed overmatched in his first taste against major league pitching and this is a guy who fanned 191 times in low A ball. Since 2015, he's spent most of his time in very hitter friendly environments. To his credit, he's produced like he should there and the strikeout rate has come down considerably but there has to be some concerns. So he looked overmatched in his first 20 mlb games? That doesn't concern me at all. He also looked significantly better in his second stint than the first one if you want to put value on a handful of games. Injury issues concern me more than a 20 game stint, but neither are overly concerning. I'm expecting him to start a bit slow and ramp up to being very productive by mid season.

I share your concerns about Brinson and his health issues, but Phillips also has an issue to scare people and that's his K rate in the minors. He struck out a ton both in AA/AAA and then struck out 34 times in only 98 at bats last year with the Brewers. Some guys can still be productive hitters in the major even though they struggle to make contact, but it's the biggest red flag for Phillips. I'd rather trade neither guy because this season is a near ideal setup to see what we have with both. Simply trade Broxton for whatever best offer can get done. That opens up 162 games in CF. Braun is a near lock to miss 50-60 games between days off and various strains/pulls. If Santana wasn't traded, that's another 10-15 games where he rests. So you'd have around 220-230ish games that Brinson/Phillips could split to see what we have with each. Sure, if a really good offer came this offseason involving either guy for a young starting pitcher, then pull the trigger, but no prospect is a lock to be good. Keeping both Brinson/Phillips though allows the Brewers to get a nice look at each come next year without then worrying maybe we traded the wrong guy. Ok, where exactly is this "braun needs to miss 50-60 games" nonsense coming from? He's played 10 full seasons(not counting his rookie year) and in that time he's had 1 season shortened by suspension, 1 season of 104 games due to injury, and 8 seasons of 135 or more games. If you want to say he's going to miss 20-30 games due to injury/rest...that's more fair than to say he's a "near lock" to miss 50-60 when he's done it twice in his 10+ year career. Back to the point. Both Phillips and Brinson have concerns, some bigger than others. I expect both to open in the majors against MLB talent, we'll get a good feel how they handle the highest level of competition this year. Brinson toiling in AAA this year isn't realistic.

I'll leave it to oreilly to post the chart, but I can tell you it's going to be very close to $70M factoring in min salaries to get to 25 players...depending on what Perez gets.

I think it will be right at 70 million once you factor Perez, I don't think his will be significantly different from projection. Still plenty of room to add some players. I still expect at least one bigger signing or trade to happen, I don't think the team is set as is.

This is what we need to remember every time we hear someone say "I can't believe that player signed an extension for that little." The teams take on a lot of risk, and the player "pays for" that risk by taking less than he'd get on the open market. Exactly. I'll never question a player taking security up front. I know it's easy for me to say because I'll never be in that position, but unless I'm being insanely lowballed, give me the lifetime security. 23M is an insane amount, to me at least. The minute I sign, it doesn't matter what happens. As long as I'm smart, my family and I have lifetime security. I never have to worry about where my next check is coming from, and my kids can go to any college they want. That's all I need. Life happens. You could turn down an extension one day and be in a car accident the next day and never play again, you could get injured playing the next year, you could flame out under the pressure to perform, or you could end up like Zach Braddock, with mental issues and ending up broke living out of your trunk. Life can happen no matter how talented you are. Is it really worth risking everything because you might end up making $60M over the same timeframe instead of $23M if everything breaks right? Are you really that much better off even if it does? Is it worth taking that kind of a chance on your Life? To me, it's not. But I respect the player's right to make their own choice on that and live with the consequences of that choice. Putting myself in a players shoes, I think I'd be very inclined to take a team friendly deal that left money on the table but set up me and my family for life from that point forward. You can get greedy on your 2nd deal in your late 20's or early 30's if you really want. But I agree completely, player's can do what they want. Most players have enormous ego's and are very willing to bet on themselves for that reason. I hope Villar bounces back and earns more than the rumored extension through big arbitration raises due to a few big years with the Brewers.

Only if they put money away to offset the liability. "Realizing an expense" just means writing it off for tax purposes, and putting an item as a liability on the balance sheet doesn't mean there is a corresponding asset to counter it. If it did, Illinois wouldn't be in bad financial shape at all. The money will have to be paid, so it will have to come from somewhere. Therefore those funds will not be able to be used to pay for additional players at that time. That could be now, or that could be in the future, but at some point unfunded liabilities have to be funded, and that means you can't use the money elsewhere. I see your point, and it's absolutely fair that the Brewers need to manage cash flows to successfully run their business. I just don't agree that these deferred salaries are impacting future payrolls. I also see your point with the Illinois example, the difference is the Brewers are making money. That added value from income is going somewhere, and I can't imagine a business as big as the Brewers would be run poorly enough to have cash flow significantly impact the club's spending abilities. Illinois on the other hand is taking in far less then they bring in in revenue, which the deficit each year gets added to their liabilities(they borrow money). If you still think they do, we can agree to disagree. It's hard to know much with any certainty without being able to get our hands on financials.

Yeah, I was a little stumped by the poster that pointed out injury concerns with Ortiz too. This is a big year for both Brinson and Ortiz. If either of them misses significant time again this season, it really is going to hamper their value as well as their chances for continued growth. Maybe it is a perfect time to unload both of them for some pitching and sign a guy like Cain. I think the injury issues are a far bigger concern for Ortiz than Brinson. Starting pitchers need to build on their innings from the prior year and work up to a 200 inning workload. It's hard to do that when injuries limit you to 100-110 innings per year. Position players don't really run into issues like that. Ortiz is young enough to build up durability and potentially help the big league rotation in 2019(solidifying himself for opening day 2020), but he needs a health season and to put up 130-140 good innings this year.

That's not a time value of money argument, that's a return on investment argument. Yes, if they took the money they deferred (essentially taking out a loan) and used it to purchase a permanent income stream that would increase payroll for the future, that's a good idea. Businesses do that all the time. When the Brewers deferred these contracts, they were right at budget on the MLB roster, and deferred the money so they could afford to add more players at that time trying to "win now." The argument of the day by those that thought this was a good idea was that money in the future was worth less than money today, so they should do more deferrals and they would save money. That theory only holds water if they are investing those funds into something that will return greater than or equal to the inflation rate you are using when computing the future value of the money. The Brewers weren't doing that, they were deferring the money so they could spend more in the present with no additional future gains. As you stated, there will be no surprise. Future payrolls will now be less than they could be because of these deferrals. In order to afford to have an extra player on the roster several years ago, our payrolls will be less (and therefore our teams may not be as good) when we are paying Braun when he is not playing for the Brewers. I have no problem being called obtuse when I'm arguing against bad business practices. I'm actually going to side with Roderick here. From a purely accounting perspective, the expense for these players has all been realized over the life of their contract. The remaining money owed is purely a balance sheet item at this point. For Ramirez, Lohse, Braun, etc...anything deferred is sitting in some liability account on their balance sheet until it actually gets paid. Since the expense has all been realized in the years they played, the amounts owed shouldn't impact future payrolls.

I don't know that he'll get that offer again regardless, but we'll see. I'd like to think he's going to show up in the best shape of his career and intent on winning his job back.

I agree as well. I think he deserved more from the process, but got a reasonable salary based on his talent at this stage of arbitration. His salary will probably balloon next year if he has another big year.

The other 3 guys have signed as well. I've only seen jimmy Nelson reported so far, at 3.7.

Knebel settled at 3.65 million, which came in about 450k under mlbtraderumors projection. I'm a bit surprised he settled so low considering the season he had, fortunate for the Brewers I guess.

It is probably more likely that Brinson is an allstar and Phillips is a solid regular than your pessimistic viewpoint.