monty57

I think they'll start the season with Yelich, Mitchell, Frelick, and Taylor as "OF only" guys. With the Anderson signing, he should be the 5th OF if needed, and Winker is another option, although I think he'll primarily be DH. I think Hiura is gone before opening day, but if not, he's an option as well. I expect Wiemer will debut at the MLB level this year, but not to start the season. I don't expect any more additions, so the real question is whether they want to start Frelick on the opening day roster, or if they keep him down a while to gain a year's service time. I think he's good enough to have a shot at "top three in ROY voting," so I think/hope they have him on the roster all year.

I would refer you to Exhibit A: Carlos Correa. He will have a physical, but on a one-year / $3.5M (plus incentives) deal, it won't be looked at quite as closely as Correa's.

Opening day is still a ways away, but this move seems to point to Turang starting the year at AAA to save a year's service time. He's our "replacement in waiting" for SS when Adames is gone, so it isn't a bad idea to preserve an extra year at the position where he provides the most value. 3B/OF isn't your typical utility guy, so Anderson doesn't really fit that role. I guess that he will be the opening day 3B, with Urias moving to 2B where he's been a better fielder and should be the most valuable. The OF flexibility is nice, in that Counsell likes to pinch-hit, so there will be situations where Anderson will shift to OF after someone gets pinch-hit for. Plus, it allows them to only have four OF (Yelich, Frelick, Mitchell, Taylor) on the roster. Urias came up as a 2B, and is below-average defensively at 3B. Turang is a natural SS who hasn't played much 3B. It will be nice to have an actual third baseman playing 3B on a regular basis. I just hope that his bat bounces back. It's a $3.5M signing, so you can't expect too much "needle moving," but this move makes sense. On a one-year deal, there isn't much risk.

The Brewers have put a lot into their international program over the past few years, and it's paying off. It's always a risk to sign a 16-year-old kid, but they've added a lot of talent to the system recently, including Chourio. Hopefully some of these recent signees become household names in a few years.

Since Stearns was brought on board, they have pushed the "continually competitive" mantra as opposed to a build a roster for a "window of success" strategy. Stearns tried to acquire cheap, long-term assets to build around, while more expensive guys were usually on short-term deals. Cain and Yelich being the obvious exceptions. Our farm took a big step forward last year, with a good portion of that success coming from the team having put a lot more into international markets over the past few seasons. Some of that talent is hitting the MLB field this season, with more (including the aforementioned Chourio) coming in the next year or so. We just added a star catcher with five years of control, and are projected to have above-average production at every offensive position, most of which are filled by guys with some team control. The one position player who will be a free agent (Adames) has a ready-made replacement in-house in Turang, who should get his feet wet this year. There is a big wave of talent that will hit free agency at the same time. In my mind, we need to trade them prior to them hitting free agency. As much value as they'll bring back, much of which will be "MLB ready" will give us a shot at remaining "continually competitive." There's definitely a chance that we could take a step back for a year or two, but we cannot afford to ride them to free agency. Losing that much prospect talent from trade would set the franchise back a long ways. We're going to lose them, we can't afford to keep them, so we need to take the plan that is most likely to allow the team to remain "continually competitive." Play through this year and probably make the playoffs while at the same time getting valuable experience for a number of our better prospects. Next offseason, trade Burnes, Woodruff, and Adames for a king's ransom in young talent, some of which will help out right away, and some of which will stock the farm. Maybe use some of the money freed up by trading those guys to sign a starting pitcher or two on short-term deals, while continuing to bring up prospects from our resurgent farm. Do early extensions to any of the good prospects who will sign them, and never get too attached to anyone.

All the more reason that they cannot afford to let the cash cow starve. They need to keep the fans happy and coming to the games. As long as that happens (and we don't have Covid part II), they should have the revenues to pay the bills. Maybe this is a short-term strategy to get the debt paid off, and not a long-term decision like it has been for much of the Cubs' history. It probably means that the Cubs won't be a 100-loss doormat, but they also won't be a 90+ win team any time soon. That could take a few wins away from the Brewers, but won't stand in the way of a good Brewer team winning the division.

All I'm saying is that what they seem to be doing is exactly what they did for decades. Radio station hosts accused them of it for years, and I talked to a person who was in the meetings who said the radio station hosts were correct. The 80% number you're citing was one year after they traded away three folk heroes who brought them to the promised land. Where would that number go after a few years of losing baseball? I live amongst Cub fans, and they're not happy with the organization. There is a lot of incentive to appease the masses and keep the revenues flowing. I get why they're doing it, but it will likely add a few wins "today" while costing them wins "tomorrow." Winning is not the main goal with this strategy, keeping the fans complacent is. You can stay around .500 as long as you get to see "Rhyno" and "The Hawk" and have a few beers on a sunny weekday afternoon. As I mentioned previously, it's a strategy that gets you mired in mediocrity. The terms "June swoon" and "There's always next year" were invented by Cub fans. They are once again earning their long-standing title: "Loveable Losers." Mind you, this is much better than what the Brewers' fans were subjected to under the Selig-Prieb regime. It will occasionally get you some winning teams, and a playoff series or two. But again, the main goal is to maintain the income stream, not to win it all. My concern stems from the fact that the Brewers are heading to a similar fork in the road. Their Bryant, Rizzo, and Baez are named Burnes, Woodruff, and Adames. Will the Brewers cave in to the fans like the Cubs have, or will they make the best baseball moves? Will they still try to attain "continually competitive" or will they go for "mired in mediocrity?" Bear in mind that they don't have the revenue streams to build a roster with mid-priced free agents like Mancini and still make money, so the Brewers' mediocrity would be a step or two below that of the Cubs.

The average ticket price to a Cub game in '22 was $56.83, so 400,000 tickets equals $22,732,000 not including things like concessions that would probably about double that number. The Cubs' owners also own a lot of the real estate around the stadium, so the loss in revenues if fans lose interest in the club would be significant. If their goal is to win another World Series, I don't think they're going about it the right way. At the very least, they're not doing what they did to win the one World Series they won in the past 100+ years. If they're trying to ensure that their cash cow stays fed, they are doing what they need to do.

It looks to me like the fan backlash they received after trading Bryant, Rizzo and Baez prior to them becoming free agents has turned them into "your father's Cubbies." I used to work with a guy who had been in the Cubs' management. He said the rumors that they spent just enough to fill out the seats and maximize revenues but not actively trying to win were absolutely true. After they made the aforementioned trades, which I think was the right thing to do at the time, the fans were in an uproar. Not wanting to upset fans any further, they held onto Contreras rather than trading him, and now, now rather than playing their "unproven" young talent to see what they have and probably getting a better draft pick, they are signing some "name" players to give the fans something to cheer for. Instead of doing what won them a World Series, it looks like they're back to their old games of trying to maximize revenues. As long as the fans stick around, they will make boatloads of money even with a $200M payroll. They won't be a playoff contender, but the fans will know the players' names so they'll continue to buy tickets. The team will make money, and the fans will be comfortably numb to reality. As long as they keep this up, the team will be mired in mediocrity. I much prefer the Brewers "continually competitive" mantra, and hope the Brewers don't go down the road of making moves to appease the "casual fan" instead of making the best "baseball moves." All in all, while this will add some wins to the Cubs this year, in the long run, it's good for the Brewers that the Cubs are taking this path.

He probably wanted to go somewhere he’d be guaranteed a starting role. With the Brewers, he’d probably be a platoon 1B / backup OF / DH, getting around 300 PAs.

That's a pretty good compilation of "Brewers' most valuable assets." Put another way, if the Brewers traded for a prospect of Chourio's level for someone like Winker, Tellez, Lauer or Houser, Arnold would immediately go down in GM folklore. Heck, if he could trade Tellez for someone on Frelick's level he'd do it in a heartbeat without regard to the 2022 first base situation. It's also kind of funny that Urias, the guy so many people are clamoring to replace, is one of our most valuable assets. I'd prefer he play second base, but he's not someone we should be looking to turn into a utility infielder.

I’m sure Boras won’t delete Cohen’s contact information over this.

As things stand, his role for the Brewers looks to be as a bullpen arm, and I think he could be a good one. But, a lot could happen between now and opening day, so the questions in our pitching staff won't be answered for a while. Of course, it's good that the questions stem around having too much talent.

There will be a point in the season where a couple of guys are banged up and some others need a day off. That's where a player like Van Meter is nice to have around. If there is a significant injury, I hope there is a better option. For example, if something happens to an OF that keeps him out for a long time, I would think that they would call up Wiemer, but if it's going to be for a few sporadic PAs over a 10-day stint, they may just start Taylor and have Van Meter (or Perkins) as the 4th OF. That way they wouldn't have to add Wiemer to the 40-man and burn an option when they send him down. If they lose Van Meter to a waiver claim after the short MLB stint, so be it. We all like to discuss the big moves a team makes, but most moves are pretty irrelevant. It's likely that Van Meter won't see the MLB playing field this year, and if he does, we all hope that guys like this aren't going to be required to play a big role this season. I guess he's probably better insurance for the role he'll play than Alexander was in his role last year. Having some extra depth is always a good thing. On a final note, having a guy with some MLB experience to play alongside our AAA prospects could be helpful to their development.

This is someone who can sit in the minor leagues and come up when someone gets a short-term injury. When the player is healthy, Van Meter can get DFA'd. No big loss if they lose him. Saves burning an option, some service time, and a 40-man spot on a more highly-regarded prospect.

Ha. I hope we didn’t trade for a guy who’s career consists of 11 plate appearances at La Moyne College.

Looks like he was the Cal pitcher of the year. He’s a 22-year-old in A ball, so hopefully he can advance quickly.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/01/reports-mets-frustrated-by-correa-negotiations-twins-have-rejoined-bidding.html Here you go @Brock Beauchamp Twins back in the Correa race.

Looking at Lauer's numbers, he's pretty significantly outpitched his FIP the past two years (3.19 & 3.69 ERA vs 4.04 & 4.50 FIP). Steamer projects him to post a 4.30 ERA and 4.42 FIP in '23. I expect him to be locked into the #4 spot in the rotation, but if Steamer is correct, he may be a regression candidate, and it might be a really good time to trade him while his value is at a high.

I'd say that they gave him the extension for cost certainty and gain a couple years' of service time through team options so if he lives up to potential then they will retain his rights. If not, then they won't exercise the options and the contract wasn't too expensive. The hope is that he can be a good starting pitcher, meaning that they got a serious discount. If he ends up "only" being a reliever, then he'll be fairly paid through the contract, and if he's a dud or gets injured, they're only out $20M. He will obviously have the most value if he becomes a solid starter, and he should be given that shot. He's going to be paid the same wherever they use him, so if they feel that he will develop better by starting in the pen, then they have the option of starting him there. He pitched 88 innings as a starter last year, where he posted a 4.81 ERA, 4.52 FIP, 3.50 xFIP. In 19.1 innings as a reliever, he posted a 2.79 ERA, 1.97 FIP, 2.36 xFIP. I definitely want to see him as a starter, but they may think he needs some more "seasoning" as a reliever, so they signed Miley to allow Ashby to spend some time in the 'pen until he's ready for the rotation. Barring further moves, here's where I see things: The "Big three" are obviously #1-3 in the rotation. Lauer has been a good pitcher, who would probably fight for the #1 spot in a number of rotations in the league. He should be locked in as the #4. That leaves Houser, Ashby and Miley for the final spot (unless you go six-man, and I've already discussed why I don't want that). It appears that Miley was signed to be a starter, but that probably isn't set in stone. That would mean that Ashby and Houser are the odd men out at this point in time. In years past, the Brewers had some success by having a few multi-inning guys in the 'pen, so until something else changes, I'd think that would be where Ashby and Houser should be penciled in right now. These guys would pitch 2-3 innings a few times/week, and would be first in line to get starts when someone goes down. After Houser's down 2021, they could also look at him and think he's better suited to the 'pen long term, and try him out as a late-inning setup guy. He probably wouldn't like that, as it would destroy his value as he's nearing free agency, but that may be where he ends up. Of course, being the last in line could mean he gets traded while he still has "starter value." If any of these guys could be sent to the minors, it would make things easier. As it is, "too much" starting pitching is a good problem to have, and I would guess that the Brewers have a plan for them.

Thank you for those numbers. It plays into my statement about wanting as many starts as possible to go to our "big 3" starters rather than doing a six man rotation. Woodruff and Peralta lost a lot of starts to injury, some of which went to Houser (117 ERA-) and Ashby (110 ERA-). That cost us enough games to miss the playoffs, even if the Alexander, Chi Chi, Small, and Bush starts aren't considered. Even though Houser and Ashby are regular starters, they aren't nearly as good as our top three guys (hopefully Ashby can get there but he's not there yet). Injuries happen, but if everyone is healthy, I want Burnes, Woodruff and Peralta starting on a regular 5-day schedule. The extra 15-20 starts that would go to a 110-120 ERA- guy instead of a 70-80 ERA- guy could be the difference as to whether we win the division or not. I think there's a decent chance that Houser and Ashby both start in the 'pen. Houser did enough last year to lose his rotation spot, and the Brewers my want Ashby to get more reps against MLB hitters. I'd like to see what Ashby can do in the rotation, but right at this moment, he and Houser look to be the odd men out, and could start the season as multi-inning relievers.

$4.5M doesn't buy much in this market. I think it's a pretty good deal for a proven starting pitcher. I like this signing, as it adds talent and opens up a lot of possibilities. I just hope that whatever they decide, they set it up for Burnes, Woodruff, and Peralta to get 30+ starts if healthy. It does open up the possibility for a trade. Both Houser and Lauer will be FAs on the same schedule as Woodruff, Burnes and Adames so they would seem to be the most likely candidates, although a major trade (Burnes or Woodruff) is still a possibility even if it seems unlikely at this point. Trading any of these guys should bring back young player(s) with a lot of team control. I think they'll move someone to the "Multi-inning reliever" role they value so much. I doubt they could find a decent reliever for this contract, so this allows them to put someone in the role Hader used to play before he became the closer. Having someone you can rely on to come in two or three times a week to pitch a few innings in a close game can add some wins, and it keeps that player stretched out enough that he can step in and spot start if necessary. Even in the likely scenario that a starter moves to the pen, we'd still have an extra arm (Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta, Lauer, Ashby, Houser, Miley = seven starters). It will be interesting to see what they do. Will they be so bold as to move Houser either Lauer or Ashby into "multi-inning reliever" roles? Have they decided that Ashby's path will be as a late-inning reliever and eventually a closer? Will they make a trade? Stay tuned, something's brewing.

Not saying anything other than a six man rotation would cost Burnes, Woodruff, and Peralta about five starts each. That doesn’t seem like an optimal solution. I don’t care how you position the pitching staff beyond Burnes, Woodruff, and Peralta, but those three need to start as much as possible.

They did the six man rotation in ‘21 because they wanted to limit innings after the short ‘20 season. Doing a six man rotation now takes starts away from Burnes, Woodruff and Peralta and gives them to lesser pitchers.