Lathund

I think part of it is that the Mets and Guardians had no reason to keep a Counsell interview private, but the Cubs absolutely would want it to stay private in case Counsell wasn't hired and Ross stayed on.

There was a report last week that the Brewers had requsted permissions for manager interviews; no reports on who they interviewed though. So I'm pretty sure the search doesn't start from zero. If the Cubs could keep this quiet, I'm sure the Brewers could keep their search quiet too. I do think the timing is unfortunate in that I imagine Vogt was on their shortlist.

Whatever their plans for 2024 we already know a full teardown and long rebuild is not on the cards, so I don't think the short-term plans matter that much; whoever they pick is going to be expected to win games either immediately or very soon. Basically shouldn't impact their choice at all, you get who you think is the best fit with your overall goals and phillsophy.

Cubs having a competent manager is going to really hurt. On the other hand, in a way, it makes it easier to move on from him. I don't blame him for taking the money, it's the biggest manager contract ever. It was almost a 50% increase on what the Brewers allegedly offered (Which even that would've made him the highest paid manager), it's hard to blame someone for that. But it being the Cubs also makes it clear that he can't have identified as much as a Brewer as most of us thought he did. No surprise really, as for the people in baseball it's just a job after all; they care a lot less about rivalries than us fans do. If he had gone anywhere else (Apart from the Cardinals maybe) I would've wished him well and missed him. Now? Thanks for the good years, but I'm so done. He showed what matters to him, and what doesn't matter to him. Which, again, I don't begrudge him. I just know that I'm done.

tbf that does worry me a bit. It would suggest the Brewers have not made a new offer to match whatever the Mets offered (Guardians apparently just hired Stephen Vogt, so they're out), and even a small raise would have been enough to make him the highest paid manager now that Francona retired. But more importantly, this sounds like a leak from the Brewers end, and you have to ask yourself why it would leak? One reason would be as a "look, we tried!" way to placate the backlash if he leaves. Now of course, it could also mean that they have made a significant offer to begin with and are in pole position, I don't really know. But I'm feeling nervous. Guardians announcing a manager probably does mean CC has turned them down though (Unless they really liked Vogt), so perhaps an announcement is close.

I've read a bunch of the NY Post and SNY homers (Heyman, Martino etc) as this process has played out. They used to sound so certain that Counsell was going to the Mets, but they seem more and more to believe that he won't. If you're not used to the tone and language they use it might not be apparent (due to the heavy bias), but that kind of article is more like a desperate plea from someone who is resigned to it not happening, but who needs to file an article that panders to the fanbase regardless. What I also think people are missing with the Mets is that Cohen isn't going to spend big forever. Clearly they will operate with a higher payroll than the Mets did in the past, among the highest in the league for sure. But this "infinite money" narrative doesn't hold water. They spent a ton over the last couple of years, but have openly said it's about trying to be competitive (Which succeeded in 2022, clearly not in 2023) while at the same time building up the farm (and not trading from it). Most of that money was short-term spending too, while the longer term deals are mostly in line with the market. Then there is Stearns. He ran the most value-focused operation in MLB for years. That's not going to stop; he'll just have more money to play with. He's still not going to overspend, or spend for the sake of it. There are expensive deals that are good value, but would just eat up too much of the limited payroll room of a team like the Brewers, that's what we'll see Stearns do, in addition to the same things he did with the Brewers. One example that springs to mind would be Bryce Harper's free agency; I imagine Stearns with the Mets' budget would have been very interested in geting him for $25m AAV. Anyway, the point I'm making is this: Mets will pay a lot, but the idea that I've seen some propose that they'll pay him $10m or $12m or whatever just doesn't have a basis in reality. Firstly because Stearns isn't that kind of executive. Secondly, I don't think even Cohen is too keen on it. Whatever their offer ends up being, it'll be at a level the Brewers can afford to match.

Of course there is risk involved. There has to be when there's a big reward involved. Basically you ask yourself if you want any chance of keeping him beyond the 6 years of team control in case he becomes a star. If you do, you sign an early extension. If the risk is too rich, you're saying you'll have the option of cutting loose in case he's a bust, but also will likely have to compete with other teams in free agency if you want to keep him. The reward is huge; having an Acuña on an Acuña type deal does so, so much for your competitive chances especially as a small-budget team. I also think Chourio has a relatively low risk of being a complete bust, as in someone who doesn't merit a spot on a ML roster. That'd be due to injuries if so. Defense and baserunning value is there already and is fairly consistent. He already has a lot of power (22 HRs as a teenager in AA is super rare). He has cut down the strikeouts a lot too; bat speed and bat control suggests he'll be able to adjust fairly well. Point is, even if he doesn't fulfill all the promise he has, he still has a lot to fall back on. With his speed and defense an Acuña type deal ($100m/8 years. Plus options) would be worth it even with fairly pedestrian hitting. With that list of players I'd break it down more like roughly 25% bust, 25% superstar, 25% all-star, 25% average-ish starter. To me that kind of risk seems well worth it. Now it obviously also depends on what kind of deal at what time. A low-end extension after already showing some ability to handle MLB pitching is obviously preferable to a somewhat expensive pre-debut deal. So much of this depends on Chourio, his agent, Brewers' risk appetite and so forth. I wouldn't say it's an easy decision, so much goes into it. But it's at the very least something the Brewers should pursue aggressively in the hope a good deal can be reached. The upside is too good not to at least seriously try, despite any risk.

Did anyone expect anything else though? Mutual options are pretty much always declined. They are a way to defer some money to next year (the buyout), and only in extremely rare cases do they align where player and team both think it's the exact right deal for them.

If he can, and intends to, interview one week later anyway, why not just grant it? You don't really lose out on anything, but might gain some goodwill.

I still expect CC to remain a Brewer. The Mets interview will make sure he gets the raise he wants. This is not like it is with players, where a team like the Mets well and truly can outbid the Brewers. Contracts like the Scherzer and Verlander deals just aren't in the realm of possibility for the Brewers. Even a massive payraise for CC, doubling his salary, is still "only" $3.5m, and I would expect it'd take less. Managers just don't get paid *that* much, this is one area where the Brewers *can* compete financially. It's just a matter of do they want to; and I think that given the comments made by ownership and the FO and the local connections and CCs status, they will. Basically, as long as he gets a significant raise, I expect he stays. He can get the New York money without the New York media and fan pressure.

Could view this either as making it imperative to keep Burnes for another run, or the exact opposite and focusing entirely on transitioning to the next Brewers team with the young position player core by trading Burnes (and Williams, and maybe others). I'm in the latter camp. Let's see Gasser and Black from day 1. Chourio, Rodriguez and others soon enough. Along with all the existing rookies, and perhaps some players from the Burnes/Williams trades. A team full of 1st and 2nd year players could likely mean a step back, but sometimes it's also unexpectedly good (Like the Reds this year). Either way, I think it'd be a fun team. As for Woody, add me to the list of those in favor of a multi-year type of deal, But it'd have to be one with some kind of option/incentive structure, just a straight up big guarantee after 2024 seems too risky.

I can't see any scenario in which the Brewers wouldn't be all over 4 years $50m for Adames. Great AAV, short enough to only cover his age 32 season.

Didn't he sign an extension after the Mets approached him before hiring Eppler?

I made a long post on the transactions forum with an offseason plan, so this'll be a very abbreviated version of it. Basically the gist of it is to keep focusing on the controllable talent already on the roster, as well as in the upper minors. Trade Burnes and Williams for MLB-ready or almost MLB-ready young players (i.e with an eye mostly on '25 and '26), give plenty of playing time to the young guys, but also use the entire budget given and shore up the weak areas of the team too. If the rookies (The 2023 and 2024 crops both) perform better than expected, let's have the complementary pieces for a run in a still weak division. Preliminary 26-man C: Contreras, Henry/new singning/eventually Quero IF: Canha/Hoskins/other signing, Turang, Adames, Black, Monasterio, Drury (or similar RHH bat) OF: Yelich, Mitchell, Frelick, two of Taylor/Perkins/Wiemer. Chourio at some point. Maybe even opening day, but likely later. SP: Peralta, Woodruff, Gasser, Ashby, Miley (Or a Miley-like signing). Rodriguez, Junk, McKendry, veteran depth signing backing up. RP: Uribe, Payamps, Megill, Milner, Peguero, Wilson, Bukauskas, Small (I'm sure some relievers will be acquired too, but no guessing who it'll be) There might also be players in the Burnes/Williams trades who might be ready already in 2024, but too hard to predict. Generally the goal in acquisitions should be to try to find some power. Rhys Hoskins if he's not too expensive perhaps. But more likely some 1-year stopgaps, platoon bats. Brandon Drury is one such example. Mitch Garver for a C/DH perhaps. Other than that, SP depth due to trading Burnes and uncertainty regardnig Woody. I like the young SPs coming through, but better to end up with too many than too few SPs. Also I find myself disagreeing with a couple of notions that seem common with our fanbase. Firstly that Adames somehow doesn't have any value. He had a down year, but is still a 3+ WAR player at what is likely his worst. xwOBA was the best of his career still, so there's a good chance of a bounceback. I'm sure every single front office values him higher than the average Brewers fan does. The second one is Canha vs Santana. If there's a significant difference in price, then sure I see the value in Santana. But Canha has been a significantly better hitter this year as well as every year for the last 4 years, and is 3 years younger so probably less risk of a sudden decline. Yes, Santana has more power. But what matters is still the overall output. A team lacking power could trade *some* overall output for less, but more power-focused production, but not enough of a difference to motivate it here. Santana is also the better defender, but not enough to make much of a difference. Santana as a stopgap for Wilken/Black is fine, but that's basically saying that league average offense (i.e 100 wRC+) is the absolute ceiling from 1B this year. I'd hope to do better, even if it means more risk.

As I'm typing this I remember I've already posted a few times in here. But I'm far enough into it that I'll post it anyway. Brewers could run it back again in 2024, but keeping all of the big 3 will mean there's not much money for FAs or to trade for more expensive players. They'd still have a good shot at the division, but would have much the same weaknesses as this year. More than that though, the 3 draft picks they'd get from QO's are great, but whatever they get from that is really far in the future. There's nothing to help in 2025 or 2026. So I'm firmly in the trade Burnes camp. He may have had a "down" year to some extent, but over the last two years he's got a 3.16 ERA while averaging close to 200 IP. No health concerns or age concerns. He's likely a rental, but a very valuable one. Find a blocked AAA hitting prospect or 1st year guy with limited chances as part of the deal, and that + $15m goes a long way even in the short term. Woodruff and Adames I'm more torn over. Depends on what the trade market and their willingness and asking price for an extension. Shouldn't trade them just for the sake of it. The gap between a trade return and the value of a draft pick is less than for Burnes, they're also more likely (Though how much more is certainly a question) to sign an extension, and they're (slightly) cheaper. So I'd lean keep, but again depends on the ratio between trade value and extension cost. Devin Williams is the other one I'd definitely look to trade. If the team believes in the current crop of rookies/controllable talent as well as the players likely to debut in 24 and 25 (Black, Chourio, Wilken, Quero etc), then Williams is only really there for the very start of that run, and will be making $10m or so. We know the Brewers can develop relievers, and spending money on relievers is the worst thing you can do when you've got a small budget. 2 years of Williams could get a good return for a team with a short window but an iffy bullpen. San Diego, Texas spring to mind. But contenders in other situations can also be itneresting; Braves or Dodgers might feel like it's the one thing they're missing. With 5 above average or better CFs on the 40-man roster (Taylor, Mitchell, Perkins, Wiemer, Frelick) perhaps a defense-needy team would be interested in a deal for a bat-first player. Hard to know what's out there, but should keep an eye out for it. Non-tenders: Lauer and Tellez are the two clear ones IMO. Toro is cheap, but out of options, and probably not a ton of trade value. So tender if you like him and see him as part of the team, non-tender otherwise. The rest you tender, even if one or two might get traded. Seen lots of suggestions that Houser should be non-tendered, but 1 year $5m for a career 4 ERA starter is excellent value. That's what, for example, Jameson Taillon is. And look at what he got paid. At worst, tender and trade. But I'd keep him. Options: Decline Chafin and Wilson. Mutual options almost never get exercised by both sides, so Miley is gone as well, but should explore re-signing him. Canha is a tough one. I'd lean decline, but multi-positional reliable bat who is a fan favorite and seems a great professional for a $9.5m decision (Option - $2m buyout) isn't bad at all. The team paid similar money for Cutch and Winker to DH recently. Sign/Acquire: Not that much, honestly. Give the kids a chance to play. The rookies from this year plus Black, Quero, Chourio, Gasser, Rodriguez, Misiorowski? Wilken too perhaps. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a Biloxi infielder would be our 2024 Monasterio. None are overly likely by themselves, but I'll say now that one of the following takes a step forward into contention: Clarke, Collins, Zamora, Murray, (EBJ too, but sticking with the more unheralded ones). So what should they get? Well the team is lacking power, so get power. Rhys Hoskins is one of the few times I'd be open to signing a 1B/DH type to a multi-year deal; I think there's a decent chance he'll be cheap enough for it to make sense. But I'd stay away from a bidding war. Not much out there in terms of realistic starting type sluggers though. Garver? So perhaps a RHH who can be a semi-platoon at some of 1B/2B/3B/DH. Other than that, get depth mostly. A Miley type. A Rea type for AAA. Maybe a solid backup catcher if they don't like their current stopgaps while waiting for Quero. Now this is the Brewers we're talking about, so none of us will see some of the moves they make coming. But it's fun to speculate anyway. I think 2024 can be a solid year even with some selling trades. Burnes and Williams are some of the best at what they do, and that'll hurt for sure. But they also account for like 17% of innings pitched. Those 17% innings will be worse, but with a more established bullpen outside Williams (compared to this time last year) and Gasser/Rodriguez/Ashby (hopefully) stepping in I think those other 83% can improve enough to compensate. Preliminary 26-man C: Contreras, Henry/new singning/eventually Quero IF: Canha/Hoskins/other signing, Turang, Adames, Black, Monasterio, Drury (or similar RHH bat) OF: Yelich, Mitchell, Frelick, two of Taylor/Perkins/Wiemer. Chourio at some point. Maybe even opening day, but likely later. SP: Peralta, Woodruff, Gasser, Ashby, Miley (Or a Miley-like signing). Rodriguez, Junk, McKendry, veteran depth signing backing up. RP: Uribe, Payamps, Megill, Milner, Peguero, Wilson, Bukauskas, Small (I'm sure some relievers will be acquired too) Now if Woodruff or Adames gets traded this'll have a knock-on effect. Probably means spending some money/prospects on a starter and a 2B. I've also not included the return from Burnes/Williams trades, as its just too unpredictable, and might not be guys that are locks for the opening day roster.

Part of the issue here is financial. If the Brewers keep all three they'll also be a fair bit more expensive next year. Meaning that in order for the Brewers to keep them *and* acquire an expensive player like Alonso the overall budget would have to increase. If it doesn't, then they could still keep all three but would have to rely largely on much cheaper acquisitions (or the rookies) to fill out the roster. And I'm not sure it'd be all that much better. Personally I'm still in the camp of trading Burnes. He's not signing an extension (He always seemed like he was going to hit the free market, hiring Boras just made his intentions even clearer) and he'll get a big return. So I'd rather look to get player(s) who can make an immediate impact, and also spend the $15m or so saved on strenghtening the weakest part(s) of the team. Woodruff and Adames will both get less of a return and are also more likely to sign an extension. So I'd be fine with riding it out with them; maybe an agreement can be reached. Maybe the team is out of it mid-season and can trade then (unlikely, but possible). Or maybe you just get two good contributors to a winning team who then gets us a couple of draft picks. But I just think that the financial restraints on the front office (Whether justified based on finances, or imposed by ownership for profits; doesn't really matter which as far as this debate is concerned, either way it's a fact) means that some money needs to be saved in an area of strength to be spent in one of weakness. Brewers have a top 3 ERA, even losing one great pitcher still leaves them in good shape there. I think using Burnes to strengthen the offense and getting long-term assets can be a better move. That being said, I'm never opposed to having great players play for the Brewers, so if they keep them all and go for it I'm fine with that too. It just wouldn't be my preferred approach.

There are some posters on here where over the years my reaction to them absolutely hating a trade/signing makes me think it's going to be a good one.

Burnes is not signing an extension, so I'd trade him. I'd extend Woodruff if he was open to it. I'd probably lean towards keeping him even without an offseason extension, try to get one done anyway and offer the QO if not. Adames... depends on the extension chances and the cost. His statcast numbers are a lot better than the outcomes this year (in fact better than the previous years, although only slightly). So decent chance of turning it around, but also still a ~2 WAR player even in a big down year. Hugely popular player as well. Quite torn about what to do tbh. I'd be open for offers but they'd need to be good. Now, with plenty of incentive to trade players in their last year of contract in 2024 (In addition to the above, Lauer, Tellez, Houser also FAs after '24. Miley, Canha, Chafin, Wilson all have various options for '24, tho many are likely to be declined), while at the same time the big youth wave either isn't ready yet, or still in the early days of team control. So I'd argue that keeping too many of the veterans for a "final push" isn't really the way to go. So generally I'd use the offseason to trade the veterans who don't make sense to (or don't want to) extend/QO, looking to get players in return who could contribute in '25 (ideally '24 too, but that's harder to get). So AA/AAA prospects, perhaps guys blocked at their position. I'd also trade Williams while he still had 2 seasons of control remaining. Cash in on relievers in general. If the youth wave coming up is as good as we hope, there'd be hard decisions to make with Williams in '25 again. I'd rather pre-empt it. I think he's great, one of the best relievers in the game. But we're not extending him, so I'd rather trade him early. So that's a ton of veterans gone. What would I do instead? Well one thing would be to get the youngsters adapted to MLB. Frelick, Mitchell, Wiemer, Chourio, Black, Quero, Gasser, Uribe, Turang for sure. Likely C. Rodriguez, perhaps Misiorowski, some more fringy prospects like Devanney, Now that also means there'd be very little money spent on payroll. I'd take all of that and find the best short-term free agents out there. Get the injury-hit SP looking for a rebound year to set them up for a big contract. Get the savvy veterans of this world like a Wade Miley. With all the youth, speed and defense on the roster, get a 1-dimensional slugger or two and hope to get the best of them. I believe in the young players on this team. If things go right, they and finding the right short-term veterans could make for a good team. TL;DR version: - Trade the veterans who aren't going to be extended. Including Burnes, Williams. Adames, Woodruff perhaps too, but better extension candidates than the others. - Play the young players the team sees as part of the future. Play them a lot. - Use all the money saved from those salaries for short-term veterans. 1 year deals, 2 year deals, 1 + options etc. Fill the roster spots that don't have a promising prospect with the best players that can be had on short-term deals. - There's currently $36m guaranteed for next year. Arbitration will add to that of course. But if relatively few of the arb-3 players remain, there is still going to be tens of millions up to the budget roof the Brewers seem to be given by Attanasio. - Youth + short term veterans can make for a good team, and sets up well for the future.

Owen Millers current 99 wRC+, even after the slump this month, is higher than what Perez put up in any season of his career. I don't care what Owen Miller did with the Guardians in 2021, I care about what the Brewers are getting from him. 99 wRC+, 1.3 fWAR while playing 5 different positions is a really good return for a cash trade and at minimum salary. Miller has been one of our better players this year; partly due to others sucking, but he has been a solid player. Who we got for essentially nothing. A deal doesn't have to be the best deal of all time to be considered good.

Again, they need to be really, really good to even get to .500 (Close to a 100-win pace), and they need *all four* of the other teams to be really bad to get to first. Just using pure probability misses some nuance, but it's a good way to illustrate how there being multiple teams to catch influences things. Even if you were to be very generous and give them a 70% chance of catching each one of the four teams ahead of them, that's still only ~24% chance of catching all of them. And even the most optimistic projection system doesn't give them much above 50% chance for even the most likely team to catch. The difference between being 8.5 out but in second place, and 8.5 games out but 5th is massive. It's what makes it so hard for them win win the division even if they were to be by far the best team. Even just one of the Brewers, Reds or Pirates playing .500 ball rest of the season makes the Cardinals winning the division extremely unlikely. And this is before even considering that the Cardinals, despite being one of the healthiest teams in MLB so far, has shown absolutely nothing suggesting they're even capable of a 100-win type pace to begin with.n

It still takes one hell of a hot streak. But even that is missing the point, it isn't just 8.5 games out, it's 4 teams they need to pass. They don't just need to gain 8.5 games on the Brewers, but also 8 games on the Reds, 7 on the Pirates and 5.5 games on the Cubs. And that's just to tie. Any one of these isn't impossible, some are even somewhat likely, but it still needs *all* of them to happen to get to first. There's also the fact that they're 10.5 games out of the WC, where there's 8 teams they need to leapfrog to get there. 28-43 is *bad*. They need to play at basically a 100-win pace just to get to .500. And even optimistic pre-season projections and predictions had them quite far below that. Now will any individual firing change a lot? Probably not IMO. But let's not kid ourselves about how bad the situation they're in is. It's happened despite being one of the least injured teams. It's happened in the expected way too; their pitching was always going to be bad, even if not quite *this* bad. So it's not a matter of a really talanted group underperforming (Like with the Padres early-season offensive struggles, that was always going to change), meaning it's hard to find the upside. Even if they play like the team the pundits predicted pre-season, or like the most optimistic projections, that still sees them far off the playoffs due to the hole they dug for themselves. And that's not taking into account that if things don't very rapidly improve, Cardinals will be sellers (Even if it's just some of the impending FAs, and not some big sell-off) and other teams will be buyers, making the gaps even bigger.

I'm not overly worried about Peraltas somewhat rough start so far. His stuff is fine, velo is the highest it's ever been. Much of the difference is BABIP and HR/FB rates which are notoriously noisy. Which isn't to say it's only randomnes/bad luck that's behind his lack of success, but it definitely is a part of it. I don't expect him to be an ace going forward, but I think he'll be an above average starter for sure. That said, there is absolutely no reason to "re-extend" him yet. He's under team control for 3½ more seasons, two of them are team-friendly options. The nature of that contract means that the team will have a lot of leverage even a year or two from now to get a team friendly extension. There is no need to rush. See if that should really is, and stays, healthy. See if the above mentioned noisy stats do normalize or not. See if Ashby gets back fully, see what you have in Gasser and Rodriguez. Wait on a bunch of other things that'll affect the future outlook of the rotation. And then decide. For now, he's here cheaply for a bunch of more years.

Burnes will have less value than if he was pitching at his 2021 numbers for sure. I think the differnece is less than we might imagine though, for two reasons. The first is that he wouldn't have returned what he was actually worth if he was pitching at that level. That was a 7.5 fWAR season, but I don't think any team would truly give up the kind of prospect capital that actually matches that. So the return would be a bit less, thus making the difference smaller. The second is that the struggles aren't accompanied by a worrying loss of velocity (Slightly down but not much), stuff (in terms of movement etc), or injuries/age. His stuff isn't that of the historically great 1.63 FIP or the low 2s ERA he put up. But even with his struggles it's a mid 3s ERA, and since he's not broken down or anything, that'd be looked at as more of a floor, given his past exploits. Look at the kind of money that pitchers who are worse even than that are getting; Walker, Taillon etc. And that's with no realistic upside to get better. Obviously extrapolating trade value for 1-1,5 years of one player from multi-year contracts from others is hard to do, but the point is that even "just" an above-average starter is something teams value very highly. Burnes, even at present, is better than that. Also, an in-season trade seems extremely unlikely to me. Trading a starter and a reliever are two very different things. Brewers would have to be really, really out of it for that to happen. And the NLC is just too bad for that to be realistic.

I would absolutely like to get better against LHP, but at the same time LHP accounted for only around 25% of plate appearances in 2022. So essentially, a 5 wRC+ improvement against RHP results in similar offensive improvement as 15 wRc+ improvement against LHP. It's not quite that simple of course, and you don't want to be too weak against LHP or it can get exploited. But the goal should be to improve run scoring, period. Improving offense against LHP is just one way to do it. So I wouldn't get too hung up on Hiura's splits. If they think he has turned the corner and cut down sufficiently on the swing-and-miss, promote him regardless. He's more versatile than Voit or Winker too. But I'd give it a bit longer. He can't be optioned again, so gotta be fairly sure the improvement is real.

They're not the kind of team that would pick him up though. Cubs aren't going to be good, but they have Hosmer and Mancini, as well as Mervis in the minors. Cardinals have Goldschmidt. Pirates/Reds probably more likely. But honestly, I don't see that many obvious landing spots in terms of 1B/DH at bats for a player who can't be optioned and earns $2m. I think there's even a chance he goes unclaimed, though I wouldn't bet on it.