Lathund

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.

A decent chunk of Contreras SB comes from 2-3 games where they ran wild. But from what I saw of those games, they really were running on the pitchers involved. There were only a handful of those steals where he even had a chance at getting the runner.

I misread his post. I guess it seemed to absurd to be saying that Brewers were using it for rotation when they had signed Cutch/Winker/Voit, so I suppose my brain thought it was the other way around.

I think his point is more that it *should* be a rotational spot, and not a place for sluggers who literally can't play the field. If you're gonna have a dedicated DH it better be someone like Ortiz or Alvarez (though he plays the field now) or rehabbing Harper. I'd much rather give Contreras some more DH time, give some off days to Yelich and others etc, rather than carry a dedicated DH *and* a guy like Rowdy. I was fine with the Winker gamble, he put up a 108 wRC+ in a season where he was clearly struggling with injury. Worth a shot if you thought he'd be healthier. But he just looks cooked. Can't make decent contact, and strikes out 10% more than his career rate. Time to try something else.

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.

Ooof. Please let it just be "only" a painful contusion and not a similar injury to Yelich. The absolute worst timing for him too; real good chance of getting a promotion soon if he kept on the way he has since he returned from the thumb injury.

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.

I don't think this offense will be great, but yeah I do expect the offense to be somewhere close to league average going forward as opposed to what it currently is. There's simply more positive than negative regression to be expected. Can use both projections and things like statcast to aid. Using statcast (And setting aside the tiny sample sizes like Toro, Monasterio, Urias) there is only really one big overperformer (In terms of wOBA vs xwOBA); Miller. And his xwOBA is still a slightly above average, and climbing, so he's due to regress, but it's not like the performance should crater. Yelich's statcast page actually looks really good, the best it has in years, and is underperforming by 30 points, Adames by 30 points, Contreras by 20. Taylor is also a huge underperformer (By 65 points) but the sad news there is that the xwOBA is still only .248. Oof. Now the Statcast metrics aren't anywhere near exact enough to say that that's what their performance will be going forward, just that they make good contact and haven't quite yet seen the results to match. The underlying performance might go up, or down, too. It is a reason for optimism though. Projection systems are adressed in the OP to some degree, but generally also expects more positive than negative regression. Miller again being the exception. Like I said I don't expect the offense at the plate to really really be better than average, but I do expect it to be average going forward. I think it's a very reasonable expectation both based on projections, advanced data, and personell changes. Voit has already been replaced. Winker will improve or be replaced. Taylor too. Turang will likely improve some, but if not will see less playing time. Yelich, Contreras, Adames should see some slight improvement overall, everything points to that. Urias is a better hitter than the guys playing time he'll replace. This will outweigh Millers likely regression. Elite defense and league average hitting is fine. It just needs to be accompanied by the pitching being reasonably healthy and matching its potential, which it really hasn't so far. Strikeout rates overall are down a ton, which is worrying; was something the team used to do really well.

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.

The return is better, but it's very much not linear. You don't get twice as good a return for 2 years, or 50% more return for 1½ years, than you do for 1 year. Selling mid season means giving up on the season, with a very winnable division, and while I don't care about the "signals" it sends, I suspect the club and many fans do. I just don't think the extra return is worth it, I'd rather have Burnes for another potential playoff appearance, and still get a good return in the offseason.

A few different parts of the rebuild question here. Firstly though, I'll say that I'm absolutely against a complete rebuild. You need to really tank to get a benefit from it, meaning even in the best case scenario you're bad for a long time. And even then there's no guarantee. So I'll be looking at it from the perspective of a soft rebuild, retool, whatever you want to call it. And it'll be offseason trades, not midseason. One is that the Brewers should look to trade or (If they're getting a great deal) extend Woody/Burnes/Adames. Keeping one, if the trade offers aren't great and an extension is possible might be alright, an extra season and a draft pick isn't nothing, after all. But 2/3 at least. The question then is if it's mid-season or off-season. I'd be very hesistant to do a mid-season trade. Yes, the return will be slightly (but not much) better, but this division isn't good, it's very winnable. Trading a top of the rotation starter or a good SS (and team leader) is different from trading a reliever. I think it'd take being 10+ games down at the deadline to see a mid-season trade, unless the return was absurd. I think the chances of an extension are really slim for all of them, and unless the payroll is allowed to go up, I don't like the idea of having $50m+ per year invested in two players (Yelich + one of those guys) for many years. Maaybe Adames really likes it enough to give a "hometown" discount. Maybe Woody wants to lock in some guaranteed money. But I doubt it. The second part is, what about the rest of the team? Lauer, Tellez, Houser all reach free agency at the same time as the "big 3". Urias and Williams are the main ones after 2025. Some FAs after this season too in Caratini, Anderson, Winker mainly, but I think the trade return for them is minimal. Anderson might be someone they could sign to a Wong or Garcia type FA deal or extension. So let's focus on the more long-term guys. If they're trading the big 3, I'd also consider the other guys with the same contract status. Again though, not going to get a ton for them so could look at cheap extensions too. Urias is someone I'd seriously look to try to extend. Free agent at 29, has positional versatility, has shown excellent plate discipline (A trait that ages well), and has room to get better IMO. Basically, because I don't really believe in a hard rebuild. the division being there for the taking (Cardinals need an entire new starting staff next year for instance), and the farm system being in a good spot, there aren't that many clear trade targets beyond the "big 3". Lauer and Houser for instance wouldn't command huge returns, and if you're losing Burnes and Woodruff you don't want to have to replace both their quality as well as the depth that Lauer/Houser provide. So not much to gain. One player I'd look at though, and I bet lots of people hate the idea, is Devin Williams. If there is interest and a good return to be had, I will always be in favor of trading relievers. No matter how good. They pitch so few innings, they're volatile, they get too expensive in relation to their impact, and finding/developing relievers is one thing this team is really good at. I think most teams are too smart these days to give up a ton for relievers, so probably not happening. But I'd certainly be open to it.

Lined up against 87 year old Adam Wainwright. Cardinals decide to cheat by getting a lefty instead. Rude!

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.