Lathund

The Vegas o/u at 76.5 is perhaps the easiest over in baseball. Rotation is worse, offense is better, bullpen has the same players but obviously is volatile. The vast majority of players underperformed on offense last year, and the team still won 92 games. Like I don't expect them to match that win total, I just don't buy into the narrative that they're 15-20 games worse. Especially not as the rest of the division didn't really get much better. Reds added a bunch, but I also think their rookie group from last year will be quite a bit worse, for example looking at statcast data. So I don't think they'll overall be better. I'll go for 84 wins for the Brewers. Generally I expect the entire division to be between 75 and 85 wins. And the 4 non-Pirates teams are probably even closer than that.

Really unfortunate news, and obviously the Brewers are better with Williams than without him. But one reliever missing ~3 months, even a really good one, doesn't make or break a season. For anyone who thought the Brewers still were in the running in a weak NLC, well you should still think that. For anyone who didn't, well this changes nothing. And adding a few more great relievers also wouldn't have improved things. Brewers still have a good bullpen even if it's weaker. I was very much in favor of exploring trades for Williams this offseason (And they might have, who knows), in hindsight that seems an even better idea now, even though I obviously had no inkling about any injuries.

My first thought when he was waived was indeed that Brewers should probably be interested. Maybe they won't be at $7m, or maybe they do believe in the batted ball data for Bauers and want to keep him (Would be hard to fit both on the roster), but it does make some sense. To avoid the waiver lottery, working out a trade for a minor prospect and perhaps reducing the salary some seems likely.

So Swanson showed he could consistently hit 25-30 HRs a year by doing it exactly twice before his free agency (25 and 27, previous high being 17) but Willy Adames coming off 25, 31 and 24 HR seasons hasn't? As I mentioned in the last post, Adames has been a significantly better hitter than Swanson to that point in their careers. Now the point isn't to say he should get more than Swanson, but to illustrate just how far off many people are in their assessment of Adames when looking at somwhat comparable players. To say that there is absolutely zero chance of Willy Adames getting a 9 figure deal is just straight up wrong. It is in fact rather likely, although not a guarantee. 2023 Adames was a 3.4 fWAR/3 rWAR/3.6 WARP player. And he has shown he can be better than that. 1 year $20m for that level of play with the potential of getting more than that is perfectly fine. Only way I see him not getting a QO is a serious injury or a total collapse, and nothing suggests that. 2023 saw his highest walk rate, lowest strikeout rate, highest xwOBA, but also lowest BABIP. Projections has him between 103 wRC+/3.1 fWAR and 112 wRC+/4.2 fWAR, and that's with projections still discounting the last two years excellent defense some. Teams value great defensive shortstop, even if their offense isn't much above average. Fans see a low batting average for a season and immediately think a player is cooked and worthless, but team executives don't. And they're the ones giving out the contracts.

I think he's closer to that than most people would assume. I've even seen comments along the lines of Will Adames not being worth a QO. Slightly below average at the plate (94 wRC+) with elite defense, a 3.4 fWAR season, is Willy in a slump. With better peripherals (Such as the best xwOBA of his career) suggesting that's not going to continue. That's a good player. 1 year before free agency he's at 107 career wRC+, 17.7 fWAR. Dansby Swanson a year before free agency was the same age, a career 88 wRC+ hitter, 9.9 fWAR. He of course had a great walk year, but even so that took him to 94 wRC+ and 16.4 fWAR. Swanson got 7 years $177m. Now you can't compare 1:1, and he still has a year to go, but if Swanson is seen as being worth 177m, then it's really not "no way in hades" territory for Adames getting $100m+.

I have the opposite view, I was really excited about Ashby. His combination of high strikeout rate and high groundball rate is almost unique, the peripherals were really good. Was rough around the edges, but exactly the kind of guy who with fairly minor changes had the potential to be extremely good. Now I just really hope he gets all of that velocity back post-injury, as I feel that was really the key to make that 2-seamer work. On that note, have we seen any velocity readings? Was only half watching (inbetween the techinical issues) but didn't notice it on the broadcast.

Well for one thing, 6 years $25m isn't a discount. It's more than Devin Williams will get in his team control years. It's roughly what Edwin Diaz got. It's only a discount if he is one of the best relievers of all time and somehow stays completely healthy (i.e Josh Hader). Whereas Peralta's deal was a massive discount. Ashby at least has a chance to be a starter, so it could be too, though the jury is still out. So it's not that $4m AAV is a lot of money, it's just that it's more than he'd otherwise get paid. So what you're paying for is the right to keep him through team options for a couple of years afterwards. You mentioned 2 $10m options earlier IIRC. Which is a steal if he really is Williams or Hader. But realistically, that's a fairly low likelihood. It's quite a lot more likely that the options represent good/solid but not great value. Like it's what Chapman, Neris, Moore got this offseason. It's better than that because he'd have more upside, would be younger, and could get QO'd at the end. But it illustrates what the market thinks reasonably well. And then there's the likelyhood that he isn't a closer calibre guy, or he is but has health issues, in which case the options aren't worth it and he'd already have been overpaid by $10m in his team control years. The starter-reliever dichotomy is real. A $10m option is... fine. But think of it like how the biggest reliever contract ever is $20m AAV for 5 years. The biggest starter contract ever (I'll use Cole for this, not Ohtani because I have no idea how to compare that to anything) is $36m AAV for 9 years. So $8m options for Peralta and $10m options for Uribe are worlds apart. There are many, many starters who teams would pay $10m AAV for. There are far fewer relievers. This offseason (so far) it's 18 starters (and at least 2 more to come) and only 6 relievers getting $10m AAV. Last offseason, 21 vs 6. And keep in mind there are a lot more relievers on the FA market than starters. A reliever who pitches 60 innings pitches ~4% of a teams innings, and thus affects 2% of their total innings (offense + defense). I am very much a believer that that doesn't warrant paying a ton of money for, even if you can pick and choose those 2% innings to an extent. It makes even less sense for a smaller budget team. With the current team budget, $10m is ~8%. Take a look at what the Brewers have paid any reliever not called Josh Hader (And now Devin Williams) and you'll see that they probably agree with me on this. So basically, I think it's a combination of it being too uncertain that he will fulfill the conditions needed for it to be worth it, but probably more so that the upside is limited even if he does. It's also easier for the Brewers to find and develop relievers out of "nowhere" than it is to do the same with a starter or position player, so the "replacement level" (To use the term incorrectly, but in a way that kinda works anyway) is higher to begin with. Now there is obviously a level of contract at which point it would be worth it. Freddy Peralta's actual deal ($15m total + two $8m options) is obviously better, makes it far more likely to get a discount (or at least somewhat even) compared to arbitration. Still not something I'd prioritize over extending other players, but it starts making sense. Get it a bit lower, or make it buy out another FA year and I'd be more interested. As for Misiorowski, much of the same applies, and I'd say the downside is even greater than for Uribe (Farther from majors, control issues, and watching him pitch makes *my* elbow hurt). But at the same time, the upside is greater. His stuff is even better than Uribe's, and there is at least some chance he sticks as a starter. So my objection to Uribe isn't necessarily that it's "too risky", but that the risk:reward ratio is off regardless. Misiorowki is more risky, but the potential reward is much greater. So I'd be more interested in Mis than Uribe for this. But ideally I'd wait to see how likely he looks to stick as a starter before committing, so he also wouldn't be my higher priority.

Quero seems the most obvious candidate to me, for reasons outlined by others here. An excellent defensive catcher has a high floor, and a floor as a glove first backup catcher is still something teams will pay a few million a year for. And even an average bat makes him way more valuable than that. Honestly after that I'd probably look at someone like Joey Ortiz. Plays SS, good defender, good contact skills, good exit velocities. Will he put it all together, turn that exit velo into extra bases/HRs more? Maybe, maybe not. But it's also that combination of a high floor if he doesn't, and pretty good ceiling if he does. And he's slightly older, won't reach FA until 31/32, perhaps guaranteed money would hold some allure. With age, I think it's mostly the youngest prospects (Who will reach FA early.-ish regardless) and the oldest (Who won't hit FA early) who might sign the more team-friendly extensions. Not sure about the current OFs and extensions. I like them a lot as players, but I don't know if they're the best candidates for extensions. I'd say that someone like Frelick doesn't have a huge ceiling, and Wiemer and Mitchell have really low floors, for all their tools giving them a high ceiling. Uribe: Just no. He's a reliever, go year to year. There just isn't enough upside in a reliever to do this, and so much risk in a high-effort arm like that.

I don't think the Cardinals will be good, but I do think they'll be better than 2023. Part of that is that even with the exact same performance they should score some more runs than they ended up doing. Now maybe there was an element of being "anti-clutch" that'll continue, but I'll always doubt that. The other part is that while their rotation will still be bad, it should be bad while covering more innings. Meaning less bullpen strain, which should mean better bullpen performance. Now of course, their rotation is still ancient, so it could also end up injured. The Cubs haven't improved at all. Not replacing Belli (yet) is huge, and Imanaga is a huge question mark to me. Busch could be anything. And while a 1-year deal for a big budget team can never be truly bad, I really don't understand why Neris got the contract he did. Literally everything about his performance screams regression. They're still a team who could be quite good if things go their way, but I don't see a ton of upside. Reds... now while I can see the argument for the Cubs or Cardinals, I really don't rate the Reds highly. It's a young team, but that can go both ways. Their young rookies pretty much all massively outperformed their xwOBA. Which isn't gospel, but suggests they need to get better if they want to maintain the same results. They signed some decent players, but not in the way that made the most sense IMO. They had a young, unproven rotation with injuries and previous workloads suggesting they'd get relatively few innings from it. And they added Montas and Martinez; one of whom pitched 1.1 innings, the other who was a swingman. That bullpen will be heavily taxed, and it wasn't great to begin with. Their "big" signing was Candelario who isn't a bad player... but the marginal gain from adding yet another good but not great infielder, something they already had plenty of, is minor. The Pirates are better than they have been in some years, and won't be a pushover. But they're still clearly the worst team IMO. Cruz, Hayes and Reynolds are a core I really like. Quite like Suwinski too. But the dropoff beyond that is massive. Rotation beyond Keller isn't much good either. I think the Brewers have a solid chance. Not necessarily favorites, but also not any worse than their competitors. I also think they're the team most likely to overperform their projections. Reds rookies overperformed projections and expectations last year, Brewers rookies did the opposite. Even a modest amount of regression will see a big change. And Brewers still have the best 2024 rookies of the bunch. But it's a really close division; anyone can win it. Well the Pirates would surprise me a great deal, but it's still so close that some randomness could see them surprise. Things like whether the Cardinals rotation stays healthy, or whether the Cubs sing Bellinger (And which Bellinger they get) will impact a lot.

I'm not really bothered about the financial side of it. Firstly because I don't think this would've happened if it was big money. Secondly, with so much of the Brewers squad being pre-arb or early in arbitration in 2025, there is plenty of room to take a chance even with a decent chunk of money. A (essentially) one year deal doesn't carry much risk, you know how that money fits into your budget, you know what/who else would be available to spend it on. I also really like Woody as a player and as a Brewer overall, and my delight for this will overshadow it being a slight overpay (if it even is).

Article mentions that he played infield in high school, summer league and has kept taking groundballs regularly, so it's not like he's starting from scratch. Him being able to play LF, CF, RF, 2B and 3B would certainly help a ton with roster flexibility and avoiding a "logjam" if most/all of the OF prospects make it (Not that said logjam would be a bad thing, never a bad thing to have too many good players).

If you look at what the short term deals for elite pitchers in recent years has been like (Bauer, Scherzer, Verlander), then essentially getting a 1 year deal at a big discount to that for a pitcher who (pre injury) was just as good will be worth the risk to teams. If he's back to his old self, you get one season at a discount and a comp pick. Downside is a good chunk of money for nothing, but it's also just 1 year. Many teams will consider it a calculated risk. I don't think the Brewers have the kind of payroll space to go for that though, limits them too much if it doesn't work out. Then again, the talk above of just a couple million per year isn't very realistic either. He'd have signed a long time ago if that was the case. Unless, maybe, he has a deal in place that's just waiting for the 60 day IL to open up. I hope the Brewers can find a solution that works for both parties though. Loved having Woody here and I'd want him back if possible.

Having just one year left and a decent salary means Adames isn't going to net a huge return, but I'd like to adress this seemingly common idea among fans that teams don't value Adames, or the less common one that he might even not warrant a QO. Uhm, what? You'd think he had a disastrous season or something, but he put up 3 WAR in a year where he significantly underperformed his career numbers as well as stats like xwOBA. There's better to come. And even if not, the player he currently is is still valuable. Good thing the people actually in baseball look beyond just a 1 year batting average. 107 career wRC+, elite defender, 17-18 WAR with a year until free agency where he will be 29. Only a year ago, a 29 year old with a career 94 wRC+, elite defense, 16 WAR at the time of hitting free agency, got $177m in free agency. Yes that's a bit misleading as his bat now is clearly better than in his first couple years, but still Dansby put up 109 wRC+ over his three good offensive years. So the comparison is close enough. My point isn't that he'll get that same contract, he might very well get less, just that players with his profile get paid, and that he's a valuable player. That being said, if they get a top 100 pitcher type I'd jump on it. But I'd also be happy seeing the year out and just getting the comp pick if the offers aren't great. Much more so than I was with Burnes.

As to the point of why the Yankees would be interested and give something up; Pitchers with options remaining who put up those strikeout numbers in AAA will always be interesting to teams. He throws 94-95 from the left side with a low release point that (should) create a good vertical approach angle. That's the kind of fastball that teams love these days. Brewers clearly see other things they don't like (The walk rate/command perhaps), Yankees think that's managable. We'll see how it turns out. Personally I don't mind too much. Yeah he could be a solid reliever some day, wouldn't surprise me. But he's not going to be a truly elite reliever I don't think, and he's not a starter. So getting something in return for freeing up a roster spot for the 10th or so best reliever on the team is fine by me. If he turns into a good reliever, then good for him, wish him all the best.

Sometimes when I read this board and others I wonder if I'm the only one who doesn't consider Bukauskas as the next DFA candidate. I actually really liked the little I saw him pitch for the Brewers last year, as well as doing well in AAA and having that former top prospect pedigree as well. Him converting to a Sinker/Slider type pitcher seems to have done him well. Not having an option remaining is what hurts his chances, as well as the likely need to have more multi-inning capability than normal in the 'pen, but in terms of abilfy I think the Brewers really like him tbh. Think it might need an injury or trade for him to make the OD roster though.

An actual scout or other evaluator who actually sees the DSL (And to a lesser extent the stateside complex leagues) kids can have some justification for rating them highly (albeit with a ton of volatility), but I feel that as an amateur doing this from an entirely outside perspective, I really can't. It's obvious someone like Yophery is incredibly talented and could be a great player, but a true top ranking, for me, will have to wait until he gets stateside. Plenty of approaches to this that are perfectly reasonable, And at least one that isn't,.. Anyway, looking back at my list what I would've done differently is rate Ortiz higher. Not a superstar ceiling, but he plays great middle infield defense, makes a ton of contact (Both things I knew at the time) but I didn't know how hard that contact was until later.

Jackson ChourioJeferson QueroTyler BlackJacob MisiorowskiRobert GasserBrock WilkenLuis LaraCarlos F RodriguezDL HallCooper PrattJoey OrtizJosh KnothYophery RodriguezEric Brown JrMike BoeveLuke AdamsEric BitontiLogan HendersonDaniel GuilarteBradley Blalock

Keith Law's farm system ranking has been released. Just like Baseball America, the Brewers system is ranked #2.

Well we already knew that was what the Brewers were going to to, my point was more if it'll work out or not.

Even with average or better injury luck, you'll still be looking at 6-7 infielders getting significant playing time in any given season. I'm very much in the "keep the depth, it'll work itself out" camp. Sure if one of them gets an offer way above what the team values them at go ahead, but no need to be proactive about shopping anyone.

A lefty with 4 plus (Some of them better than that) pitches is definitely going to have a major league career, probably a good one. I really hope it'll be as a starter. Command is hard to improve so perhaps it's unlikely, but there are also plenty of examples of it happening later in a pitcher's career too . Chris Hook and the rest of the pitching development staff must be salivating at the thought of working with someone with that kind of stuff though, and if anyone can make him into a starter, it's them.

I'm fully in the camp that trading Williams now is the way to go. With 2 rather cheap years left and coming off another great season, the return is going to be good (For a reliever anyway). The next (hopefully) great Brewers team is going to be as the current crop of rookies and young players hit their stride, and Williams is only going to be there for the very early part of that. They're never extending him (And rightly so IMO), so cut the cord early while the return is good. But I don't think that's what they're looking to do though. With Hader, there was trade chatter for years. Haven't heard a peep about Williams, other than speculation like mine that it would make sense. I don't mind the altnernative of having a top 3 closer finish out games for us a while longer, I just think it'd be better to cash in, as he'll be gone soon anyway. And if this team has shown anything, it's that they can find and develop relief pitching. And with Uribe, Payamps, Megill, Milner already there, and Misiorowski (I hope he sticks as a SP, but I doubt it) in the wings; and the pitching lab always there, it's an area of strength.

I'll die on the hill that spending this kind of money on players who pitch ~4% (60 innings) of a teams total innings, and thus affects 2% of their total innings, will always be a bad use of money. Yes, you can pick and choose when those innings happen, and they'll rarely be "wasted". But that doesn't change that the # of runs saved/scored is minimal. If you have a $300m payroll and you have a WS caliber team already, then yeah sure go ahead, maximize your chances of winning playoff series. It's bad value in the sense that you pay a lot for any extra win, but on the flipside that extra win carries bigger rewards than normal. But in the vast majority of cases, spending that $20m on the best position player or starter available gets you more of a return. Anyway, with that out of the way, *if* you are going to spend that kind of money on a reliever, Hader is about as good a candidate for that as you can find. Crazy dominant over his career. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but he has never been on the (non-COVID) IL as a major leaguer, right? I can't remember any injuries anyway. Any pitcher can get injuried at any time, but that kind of injury history at least reduces the risk. It's also interesting to see what direction the Astros will go. Under Luhnow and Click they were one of then most analytically run teams out there. But with the firing of Click and the noises coming out from ownership it seemed they were unhappy with that direction, and while it's only a few signings, the deals for Abreu and particularly for Montero and now Hader seems much more like the kind of thing the Padres or Angels or Rockies would do, than the Astros/Rays/Brewers/Guardians mould.

I think that another corner IF signing is almost guaranteed to happen before the season starts though. And I wouldn't interpret that as them not thinking Wilken could have an impact. They just wouldn't go into the season with this little depth. Mind you, I don't expect it to be one of the bigger names out there (i.e Hoskins, Chapman or the likes). Santana is probably the biggest signing we could expect.

Most of that shiny ERA from Teheran came when he was significantly younger and his fastball 3-4 mph faster. All of his peripherals points to the great defense and/or randomness keeping that ERA where it was. Not someone you want on a major league deal. You might want to check what the run environment in AAA was last year, it was significantly higher than MLB, with the generally hitter-friendly environment combined with various experimentation with automated ball-strike systems. So 3.90 ERA would've made him one of the very best starters there. Having insurance is nice for sure, but paying Teheran $5m aint the way.