Lathund

You're seriously overestimating the impact of even an elite starter if you think that losing Burnes has *that* kind of impact. Replace Burnes' 2023 innings pitched and ERA with even just a 4.50 ERA pitcher (or pitcher(s)), and how many runs/wins do you think that equates to? Answer is ~0.15 ERA increase overall, or ~24 runs total, or 2-3 wins. If you want to add some to that due to the likely replacement pitching fewer innings, necessitating more IP by relievers, some more shuffling of the backend etc then go ahead. Still doesn't go beyond a few wins. It's not nothing, but the return for Burnes along with spending his $14m or so salary elsewhere will also make up for some of that. Even just losing Burnes and going into the season with the current remaining roster has a ceiling above 72 wins. And more moves will be made, even if they're not big or flashy.

There isn't a realistic offer which he'd sign where that amount of money isn't going to improve the team more by being spent on a position player, or a starter. Just the notion of paying $20m+ AAV for a player who will pitch 50-60 innings is absurd for a team on a budget. It's honestly not a good move for *any* team IMO, I think there's always a better way to spend it. I think the only time it's worth it is if you have a legit WS-calibre team already and just want to increase your playoff chances even further. Brewers were never going to extend Hader, and they are never going to extend Williams. They know how to find or "create" relievers out of nowhere. It's the only area of the team you can get something from (almost) nothing, so logic says to then do that, and spend the money on the other areas. I don't think the Brewers have offered a multi-year deal to a reliever (Not counting 2-year arbitration deals like Suter, or 1 year + option(s)) under Stearns/Arnold, and I don't know if they've offered more than $2m to any reliever (Excluding arbitration) since 2018 (Boone Logan). I could be slightly wrong about the numbers, but the overall point still stands, namely that the Brewers don't spend money on relievers. Which I think is entirely correct; with the caveat that the money then should be spent elsewhere.

Need some "needle mover" talk too.

Sinker was 3mph harder in 2023 than it ever was in the past. Probably part of what they like. I'll always trust this team to be able to spot overlooked pitchers they can fix. It won't be a 100% success rate of course, but it's certainly good enough to believe they know what they're doing.

Automatic ban for the many posters who consistently spell his name "Huira"

There's no rush to do anything with Wiemer or any of the other young OFs. They all have options, they're all cheap, they all play multiple OF positions, and there *will* be injuries. I'd suggest just waiting to see who looks like the real deal and who doesn't. That is unless they already feel like they have an idea of who might not be able to make it, or at least is the least likely to make it. With the access to the surface level stats we as fans have, that's probably Wiemer. However he probably also has a higher ceiling, in that *if* he ever hits enough to get to that stupid raw power he's a star. I'd generally suggest that unless some slam dunk type of trade like the Contreras trade shows up, then just let him work on his game in AAA and see what you have. I just don't see how that swing can have ML success; not that completely revamping everything that got him here is realistic, but there's just so much extra movement and so many moving parts that I don't see how it can ever be consistent so it needs at least some refinement.

Makes a lot of sense to trade Williams. Relievers never get monster returns, but 2 rather cheap years of one of the very best relievers in baseball should get a pretty good return. Back end of the bullpen with Payamps, Uribe, Megill, Milner was really good, and guys like Peguero, Bukauskas, Wilson were good too. Finding or developing relievers is one thing this team always does well. Of course losing someone like Williams will still be felt, but he was also never going to get extended (Correctly so; long-term reliever extensions are a trap for smaller budget teams) so just making sure it happens earlier and gets a return. When you have the ability to find solid relievers for nothing, trading from that strength to improve elsewhere is just good business.

Indeed. The usual crowd of posters who compete about who can be the most negative about every move the Brewers have made over the 7-8 years I've been visiting this site. It's not even the negative part I care about; if you come through that conclusion through analysing and legitimately trying to understand a trade that's fine. But it's just the automatic hyperbolic negativity, all the time, that gets me. Trash every move the team has ever made, ignore the majority of the time when you've been dead wrong; live forever on the "glory" of the automatic negativity being right a couple times, never acknowledge how you absolutely trashed the Yelich trade or wished Wade Miley got injured so the team wouldn't add him to the ML roster. No self-awareness at all. Some genuinely believe they'd make better decisions as GM than Stearns/Arnold did.

Joe Espada wasn't the manager when the Astros won in 2022. Dusty Baker, 73 at the time, was.

They've made smart decisions so far during their rebuild, and both Mike Elias and Sig Mejdal were part of the Stearns and Luhnow front office in Houston. Obviously hard to judge how good an executive is, but they've gathered an excellent group of young players and still have a great farm, and making boneheaded and short-sighted trades seems unlikely. I'm sure they will be very active, and I'm sure they're interested in Burnes, as would the Dodgers be. I was only talking about those specific trade packages. That's what they might reasonably do for 3, or maaaybe 2 years of Burnes, but not for a rental. It's just way too much. Believe me, noone would be happier than me if Bowden was right for once. I just find it hard to believe.

It's Jim Bowden. He is at best two decades behind on how front offices think and evaluate trades. The Orioles and Dodgers are smart, they don't give up those kinds of packages for one year of Burnes. Bowden might have done those trades, but unlike him the Orioles and Dodgers aren't stuck in the pre-Moneyball era.

Morels contact rate and swinging strike rate is atrocious. It's Baez-like, y'know without the excellent SS defense. Maybe he can stick at 2B, but seems like someone who will mostly be relegated to DH duties already aged 24. It's the kind of profile at the plate where regression seems far more likely than improvement. The Cubs giving up on him already is a big red flag as well. I'm not kidding myself about Burnes' trade value; it's only one season after all. But for the Brewers to trade him to the Cubs of all teams; a division rival with the kind of revenue to easily be able to afford an extension (If ownership finally decides to spend), then what we're looking at isn't a trade that's "fair". They overpay or they look elsewhere. Morel isn't terrible, and you'd get 4 years of him. But I want more potential upside in a trade than a DH who might have power, but also has a big hole in his bat.

85 wRC+ over the last three years. 97 wRC+ for his career. Don't really see how he'd improve anything.

Dunn is a late bloomer, but I imagine that the Brewers see the combination of power and on-base ability and see enough in the underlyign data to make them feel that it's real. Whereas Moore and Mendez are more toolsy players for scouts to dream on; like if they ever get it together, their ceiling is high. I would think the Brewers see those chances getting smaller, and even if it does happen it's likely years away. And it's not like there aren't a lot of toolsy outfielders and middle infielders in the Brewers Arizona and A-ball levels. Making use of the extra 40-man slots to take a player who likely is available mostly for his Rule 5 status. Also a trade that lines up more with trying to have a pipeline of guys ready to come up and contribute in '24 and '25 alonside Frelick/Mitchell/Wiemer/Chourio/Turang/Uribe/Gasser/Rodriguez (x2?)/Black/Wilkens/Quero and perhaps other guys who have proven themselves in AA or above.

Tendering a contract to Houser is a no-brainer. Then you can make the final decision on whether to trade or keep later on in the offseason. I don't think the trade return is going to be all that great, so I'd be mostly inclined to keep him. No Woodruff and (likely) no Burnes means innings to cover, and I'd rather trade the guys with higher value (Burnes, Williams) than Houser. But of course if the Brewers manage to find cheap starters they like, trading Houser could always be an option. I'm also not opposed to a (cheap) extension, even if I find it unlikely from both sides. I like the changes Houser made this year, increasing the strikeout rate and dropping the walk rate. I think there might be more room there for some further tinkering.

I think the Burnes market could be pretty good. For one thing there's a lot of team that have a lot of holes to fill. Secondly Burnes, even when he's not pitching to the CY levels, is still better than most of those guys. And there will be some teams for whom 1 year and ~$15m is preferable to a long deal, even if they have to give up something for it. Won't be an extreme sellers market or anything, but there will be demand for a guy who is durable, adaptable, cheap for what you're getting. Let's not forget that over the last 4 years he leads all starters in ERA-, FIP-, WHIP, BAA, to take some few stats. And is 5th in IP. He's valuable, and he'll at least get the team a QO draft pick back.

TPlush might very well be a Mr, but he's not MrTPlush

On paper Murph has all the qualifications. Managed at the College level, a long stint as bench coach to Counsell, management experience (albeit brief) with the Padres, and he obviously knows all the players and staff so wouldn't have any issues working with the existing staff (as MA announced they're staying). But I don't know what it is, I just don't see it as a very good idea, or that he's what the team is truly looking for. I suspect they would've loved to have gotten Vogt. Will Venable is another, but IIRC he's turned down opportunities to interview elsewhere; I suspect because he knows he'll be the Rangers manager when Bochy retires. I also don't see what'd be so attractive about Seitzer; hiring the hitting coach of a good offense as your manager isn't somehow going to transform your own offense. Nor is there necessarily any reason to think the qualities of a hitting coach transfer to being a manager. Chris Hook was mentioned by some too. Presumably based on the strength of the Brewers pitching development, but why would we want to take him away from that then? If he wants a promotion and/or raise, I imagine it would be to some kind of "Director of Pitching Performance" rather than manager. But really, having said all this, I don't know how we as fans can possibly know with any real certainty who would or wouldn't make a good manager. We don't know what they're like as people, what their communication skills are (outside of interviews and such), their interpersonal skills, their knowledge of the game and analytics, or how the decisions behind the observable in-game decisions come about and their part in it etc. So I don't have any strong opinions. Now one thing that I'd really be curious about is to see how, if at all, the in-game decisions change with a new manager. Would be a way to know how much of what we associate with CC in terms of that is him, and how much is the front office. Most likely it's a combination of the two, but we'll see. Like I wonder about things like the reverse platoon split players being used in typical platoons for instance. Could make a real case that it's a result of either oldschool manager stuff (Righty vs lefty, and that's it) or extreme reliance on analytics (i.e everything suggest there *shouldn't* be a reverse platoon split for this player). Just one example, another is the bullpen usage. So which things change, and which don't, could be interesting.

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.