monty57

I'm not really a big fan of extending guys when they're already well into their arby years and are basically getting full free agent money. The Brewers should be deciding whether to offer Mitchell an extension, and whether they'll do the same to Turang, Frelick, Chourio, etc. over the next few seasons rather than trying to figure out how to work a nine-figure extension into future payrolls. Therefore, I'm more on the side of trading all three of Burnes/Adames/Woodruff prior to them hitting free agency. It probably makes sense to trade away one of them now instead of trying to unload all three in the same offseason. If the Brewers were to extend one of them, I'd probably want it to be Woodruff. As far as Adames, I don't really like the "all or nothing" approach in hitters, and his OBP probably makes him a better 5-6 hitter than top of the order guy. He's a nice player to have on the team, but not someone I'm giddy about locking in to a big-money, multi-year deal. Trade him either now or next offseason, let Turang man SS, and add a bunch of top prospects talent that will be cheap and under control for six years each. Some day maybe I'll pick a big market team as my "second team," and I can get excited about them paying money for a "name I know." As a Brewer fan, I have learned that paying money for that name usually isn't the best use of finite resources. Let someone else sign them to that big contract while we stockpile young talent that plays for a discounted salary. If we trade Adames while he's still in his arby years, we are very likely to get more value out of what we get back than we would receive from holding onto him. If we extend him, he will have zero "surplus value," so we'd have to hope he plays up to his contract while we try to field a team around him without a ton of money to spend. I think part of the reason people like the thought of extending players is because we "should" be able to do it, and signing that extension shows we're one of the "big boys." It sucks to have to watch guys we've cheered for leave to play elsewhere because we're "too cheap." In reality, we're probably better off with young talent and financial flexibility than we are by having a "known player" on the team along with the big, guaranteed contract it took to get him. Extensions signed this late in arby are basically free agent deals, and small market teams will never maintain competitiveness by building through free agent deals.

I don't think we'll sign him, 2023 will be Abreu's age 36 season, so teams looking at signing him will probably be looking at a 1 or 2 year deal. With the Brewers' probable financial constraints heading into next season, I think you are correct that they won't be able to offer him the highest-dollar-value, short-term deal, and he will very likely not be a Brewer. How it could get done: 1) He likes living in Chicago. Milwaukee is close to Chicago. I'm not sure of his family situation, but they could keep their home in Chicago and he could get an apartment in Milwaukee and only be a short drive away. He's made plenty of money, so maybe at this point in his career he'd forgo some money in order to not have to uproot his (and his family's) life. 2) We add a year onto the end of the deal. I don't like doing this, as it's probably going to be a year we'd wish we didn't have him, but this was one of the main reasons Cain signed here. I think that if the team is looking at guaranteeing money into 2025 or beyond, they will first look at extending Burnes, Woodruff or Adames. If those talks are going nowhere, then they may look at signing a bigger-money free agent.

I don't think we'll sign him, 2023 will be Abreu's age 36 season, so teams looking at signing him will probably be looking at a 1 or 2 year deal. With the Brewers' probable financial constraints heading into next season, I think you are correct that they won't be able to offer him the highest-dollar-value, short-term deal, and he will very likely not be a Brewer. How it could get done: 1) He likes living in Chicago. Milwaukee is close to Chicago. I'm not sure of his family situation, but they could keep their home in Chicago and he could get an apartment in Milwaukee and only be a short drive away. He's made plenty of money, so maybe at this point in his career he'd forgo some money in order to not have to uproot his (and his family's) life. 2) We add a year onto the end of the deal. I don't like doing this, as it's probably going to be a year we'd wish we didn't have him, but this was one of the main reasons Cain signed here. I think that if the team is looking at guaranteeing money into 2025 or beyond, they will first look at extending Burnes, Woodruff or Adames. If those talks are going nowhere, then they may look at signing a bigger-money free agent.

The way things stand, Hiura is still a mystery. With the way he was used last year, I was kind of surprised that they offered him arby. Does that mean they envision him playing a big role as 1B/DH/2B, or did they just offer arby so they could flip him for someone in trade? Outside of Hiura, things are starting to shape up, and their plans for Hiura could determine what else they do. The OF looks pretty set with Yelich, Mitchell, Frelick, Taylor and possibly a 5th OF from the AAA group. Adames is SS, Urias will probably play 3B vs RHP and 2B vs LHP, with Brosseau at 3B vs LHP and filling a utility role otherwise. Wong is at 2B vs RHP, Tellez is at 1B. Caratini will fill one catcher spot and we'll probably find another, hopefully a starter. We'll probably pick up a utility guy who can back up SS. So, what do we do with Hiura? If he is going to be our main DH, then we could be pretty much set the way we are, other than picking up a catcher and a utility guy. They didn't seem to trust him last year, so that would be a surprise, but why offer him arby if they're just going to sit him on the bench? He isn't a good defender, so his value as a bench player is limited, and he should only be on the roster if he's going to pair with Tellez in a 1B/DH combo, hopefully finding someone who can fill in vs LHP.

The way things stand, Hiura is still a mystery. With the way he was used last year, I was kind of surprised that they offered him arby. Does that mean they envision him playing a big role as 1B/DH/2B, or did they just offer arby so they could flip him for someone in trade? Outside of Hiura, things are starting to shape up, and their plans for Hiura could determine what else they do. The OF looks pretty set with Yelich, Mitchell, Frelick, Taylor and possibly a 5th OF from the AAA group. Adames is SS, Urias will probably play 3B vs RHP and 2B vs LHP, with Brosseau at 3B vs LHP and filling a utility role otherwise. Wong is at 2B vs RHP, Tellez is at 1B. Caratini will fill one catcher spot and we'll probably find another, hopefully a starter. We'll probably pick up a utility guy who can back up SS. So, what do we do with Hiura? If he is going to be our main DH, then we could be pretty much set the way we are, other than picking up a catcher and a utility guy. They didn't seem to trust him last year, so that would be a surprise, but why offer him arby if they're just going to sit him on the bench? He isn't a good defender, so his value as a bench player is limited, and he should only be on the roster if he's going to pair with Tellez in a 1B/DH combo, hopefully finding someone who can fill in vs LHP.

They have Brosseau as a “lefty killer,” but they could definitely use another solid RH bat. Hiura can’t hit lefties, so as of right now, we’ve got Taylor and whoever our backup catcher ends up being.

They have Brosseau as a “lefty killer,” but they could definitely use another solid RH bat. Hiura can’t hit lefties, so as of right now, we’ve got Taylor and whoever our backup catcher ends up being.

I’d be pretty surprised if they have on opening day roster of $130M again this year. My guess is it’ll be around $110-$115. Right now, Cots has us around $102. I know some people don’t believe this, and no one wants to hear it, but last year’s $132M was probably over budget in a “go for it” year. Unfortunately, with reduced attendance, they probably lost money and we’ll see a reduction in payroll this year that will continue until ticket sales go back up.

I’d be pretty surprised if they have on opening day roster of $130M again this year. My guess is it’ll be around $110-$115. Right now, Cots has us around $102. I know some people don’t believe this, and no one wants to hear it, but last year’s $132M was probably over budget in a “go for it” year. Unfortunately, with reduced attendance, they probably lost money and we’ll see a reduction in payroll this year that will continue until ticket sales go back up.

Yeah, Adames' down season (especially in avg/OBP) mixed with McCutchen being forced into the top of the order every day hurt. There was no consistency behind Yelich. I also think that the team's insistence that you cannot put two LH hitters back-to-back in the order hurts. Our best "vs RHP" lineup to start the season would probably have Yelich and Wong at the top of the order. With Yelich, Mitchell, Wong, Frelick, Tellez on the roster, it might be hard to find ways to not have back-to-back lefties. Without Renfroe, it really throws the LRLRLR lineup for a loop, because it means that someone like Hiura or Urias would be the regular clean-up hitter. That's another reason to believe that we're going to pick up a RH corner-IF/DH before the season starts. I hope that Frelick and Mitchell will continue to be higher-OBP guys as they transition to the majors. It will be interesting to see where Counsell puts them in the lineup to start the season, but as the season progresses, I expect to see them moved up in the order. Turang is another high-OBP guy that will eventually hit the majors as we continue the transition away from high-SLG, high K, "all or nothing" approach guys. Of course, a lot will depend on what other moves are coming. As I mentioned, I think we're going to pick up another RH bat and I think that will make things look a lot different than they currently stand. Maybe freeing up $11M by trading Renfroe in order to sign Contreras to a $20M-per year deal would make people feel better about the trade :-)

Yeah, Adames' down season (especially in avg/OBP) mixed with McCutchen being forced into the top of the order every day hurt. There was no consistency behind Yelich. I also think that the team's insistence that you cannot put two LH hitters back-to-back in the order hurts. Our best "vs RHP" lineup to start the season would probably have Yelich and Wong at the top of the order. With Yelich, Mitchell, Wong, Frelick, Tellez on the roster, it might be hard to find ways to not have back-to-back lefties. Without Renfroe, it really throws the LRLRLR lineup for a loop, because it means that someone like Hiura or Urias would be the regular clean-up hitter. That's another reason to believe that we're going to pick up a RH corner-IF/DH before the season starts. I hope that Frelick and Mitchell will continue to be higher-OBP guys as they transition to the majors. It will be interesting to see where Counsell puts them in the lineup to start the season, but as the season progresses, I expect to see them moved up in the order. Turang is another high-OBP guy that will eventually hit the majors as we continue the transition away from high-SLG, high K, "all or nothing" approach guys. Of course, a lot will depend on what other moves are coming. As I mentioned, I think we're going to pick up another RH bat and I think that will make things look a lot different than they currently stand. Maybe freeing up $11M by trading Renfroe in order to sign Contreras to a $20M-per year deal would make people feel better about the trade :-)

The way for the Brewers to afford an extension to one of their stars while having Yelich on the books is to have a lot of pre-arby guys on the roster. They have developed some guys, but they will need to trade for others. Yelich and Woodruff would take up close to half our payroll, leaving around $50-$60M for the remaining 24 players (around $2-$2.5M per player on average). It will take a lot of league minimum players to make that happen. The best way to get these players would be by trading away the other two stars. The only way I see the Renfroe trade affecting any extension plans is that they picked up some guys who could be cheap role-players for the next half-decade. If the guys we got back become a #5 starter and a middle reliever, that’s still 2 of the 24 spots taken up for league minimum, leaving more money for other players. We would continually have to drop mid-tier guys when they’re in their arby years, hope to get more Ashby/Peralta-type extensions and not count on any significant free agent signings. And, of course, we’ll have to trade away most of our good players a year or two prior to free agency, even if it makes fans and media call them cheap. In other words, a Woodruff extension (I don’t think Burnes is even an option) would be a huge commitment for the Brewers. Since he would likely be signed into his mid-30’s, I don’t think it would be a good gamble. If he “hit the cliff” in his early 30’s, paying him and Yelich would be a huge hurdle to overcome.

The way for the Brewers to afford an extension to one of their stars while having Yelich on the books is to have a lot of pre-arby guys on the roster. They have developed some guys, but they will need to trade for others. Yelich and Woodruff would take up close to half our payroll, leaving around $50-$60M for the remaining 24 players (around $2-$2.5M per player on average). It will take a lot of league minimum players to make that happen. The best way to get these players would be by trading away the other two stars. The only way I see the Renfroe trade affecting any extension plans is that they picked up some guys who could be cheap role-players for the next half-decade. If the guys we got back become a #5 starter and a middle reliever, that’s still 2 of the 24 spots taken up for league minimum, leaving more money for other players. We would continually have to drop mid-tier guys when they’re in their arby years, hope to get more Ashby/Peralta-type extensions and not count on any significant free agent signings. And, of course, we’ll have to trade away most of our good players a year or two prior to free agency, even if it makes fans and media call them cheap. In other words, a Woodruff extension (I don’t think Burnes is even an option) would be a huge commitment for the Brewers. Since he would likely be signed into his mid-30’s, I don’t think it would be a good gamble. If he “hit the cliff” in his early 30’s, paying him and Yelich would be a huge hurdle to overcome.

Cots has his '23 arby estimate at $13.1M, so if they're right, the $18M and $25M you have estimated for the arby years may be a bit high. For the majority of this contract, the Brewers would be committing $54-60M / year to Burnes and Yelich, or around half of their payroll. They do not have many other commitments at this time, and with an insurgence of prospects (both our current guys and ones we would get from trading away guys like Adames and Woodruff), at least in the next few years we could probably pay the remaining 24 guys $60M (avg of $2.5M each). However, it would be tight, and as the pre-arby guys start to hit arbitration, we'd once again be at the stage of wondering how we'd hold onto everyone. It's probably possible, but obviously very risky (especially if there's a no-trade clause) and probably not something they'll be willing to do.

Cots has his '23 arby estimate at $13.1M, so if they're right, the $18M and $25M you have estimated for the arby years may be a bit high. For the majority of this contract, the Brewers would be committing $54-60M / year to Burnes and Yelich, or around half of their payroll. They do not have many other commitments at this time, and with an insurgence of prospects (both our current guys and ones we would get from trading away guys like Adames and Woodruff), at least in the next few years we could probably pay the remaining 24 guys $60M (avg of $2.5M each). However, it would be tight, and as the pre-arby guys start to hit arbitration, we'd once again be at the stage of wondering how we'd hold onto everyone. It's probably possible, but obviously very risky (especially if there's a no-trade clause) and probably not something they'll be willing to do.

Maybe not, but if we hold onto everyone, we should be in the race at the deadline. We saw this year what happens if a good player is traded away while they're in the race, so that probably won't happen again. So, if we hold onto everyone and we remain competitive, the team is putting itself in the situation where they will have to trade away Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, Lauer and Houser in the same offseason after 2023 or ride them to free agency and lose them for nothing. I mentioned this earlier, but I think they'll lessen their return by trading both Woodruff and Burnes in the same offseason, as they will be taking offers #1 and 2 in one year, rather than getting the best offer in two successive seasons. If they are able to extend one of Burnes/Woodruff, then I could see them both being on the roster in 2023. If they do not extend one of them, I think one will be traded this offseason.

Maybe not, but if we hold onto everyone, we should be in the race at the deadline. We saw this year what happens if a good player is traded away while they're in the race, so that probably won't happen again. So, if we hold onto everyone and we remain competitive, the team is putting itself in the situation where they will have to trade away Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, Lauer and Houser in the same offseason after 2023 or ride them to free agency and lose them for nothing. I mentioned this earlier, but I think they'll lessen their return by trading both Woodruff and Burnes in the same offseason, as they will be taking offers #1 and 2 in one year, rather than getting the best offer in two successive seasons. If they are able to extend one of Burnes/Woodruff, then I could see them both being on the roster in 2023. If they do not extend one of them, I think one will be traded this offseason.

A) You're just arguing semantics at this point ("solid" isn't a good word, you should have said "super solid," and if you had than I'll say you should have said "super, super solid"), so I'll just bow out of this one. B) There is age regression for every player. Players age differently, but everyone ages. Once you get beyond the "Prime years," you are taking extra risk because at some point everyone will hit the cliff. Looking at a handful of guys and saying "see, these guys did it, so this particular player can as well" is ignoring that while some players have careers into their late 30's, most don't. The likely scenario in a 4-5 year extension beyond current team control for Woodruff is that he would pitch progressively worse each year of the extension, as he will be past his prime for the entire extension. There is a chance he could remain dominant, but that's probably around equal to the chance that he'd fall off a cliff in year one of the extension. A progressive decline for a player of Woodruff's caliber may still have him as an above-average player at age 35, but we'd be paying for an ace. Therefore, the likely scenario is that we'd be significantly overpaying, and the odds that we'd get our money's worth are probably about equal to the odds that it's a massive overpay. It's hard for the Brewers to pay big money for anyone. Paying that for a guy who will be at the end of his prime in his final arby year adds a lot of extra risk, and would probably (not certainly) lead to a period where everyone was wishing that we could get out of the contract. I can't think of a multi-year contract the Brewers have had for a player in his mid-30s where this hasn't been the case. It's hard to think that the stars we have today may not be the stars we have tomorrow, but the math seems to point to Burnes being too expensive and Woodruff being at an age that a long-term extension doesn't make sense. We're better off offering early extensions to young players that will get the team control period to age 30 or so than we are to extend older players beyond that age.

A) You're just arguing semantics at this point ("solid" isn't a good word, you should have said "super solid," and if you had than I'll say you should have said "super, super solid"), so I'll just bow out of this one. B) There is age regression for every player. Players age differently, but everyone ages. Once you get beyond the "Prime years," you are taking extra risk because at some point everyone will hit the cliff. Looking at a handful of guys and saying "see, these guys did it, so this particular player can as well" is ignoring that while some players have careers into their late 30's, most don't. The likely scenario in a 4-5 year extension beyond current team control for Woodruff is that he would pitch progressively worse each year of the extension, as he will be past his prime for the entire extension. There is a chance he could remain dominant, but that's probably around equal to the chance that he'd fall off a cliff in year one of the extension. A progressive decline for a player of Woodruff's caliber may still have him as an above-average player at age 35, but we'd be paying for an ace. Therefore, the likely scenario is that we'd be significantly overpaying, and the odds that we'd get our money's worth are probably about equal to the odds that it's a massive overpay. It's hard for the Brewers to pay big money for anyone. Paying that for a guy who will be at the end of his prime in his final arby year adds a lot of extra risk, and would probably (not certainly) lead to a period where everyone was wishing that we could get out of the contract. I can't think of a multi-year contract the Brewers have had for a player in his mid-30s where this hasn't been the case. It's hard to think that the stars we have today may not be the stars we have tomorrow, but the math seems to point to Burnes being too expensive and Woodruff being at an age that a long-term extension doesn't make sense. We're better off offering early extensions to young players that will get the team control period to age 30 or so than we are to extend older players beyond that age.

A) Of course I didn't mean they should take whatever crap someone will unload on them. If the Brewers were to look for offers on Burnes and / or Woodruff and no team gave them anything worth taking, then I'd be pretty shocked. I think the more likely scenario would be that they would get multiple solid offers on both of the players, and as I said, they would take the one that made the most sense. B) I think that Woodruff is more likely to extend than Burnes, and I could see a scenario where that could happen. I don't think that it's wise to think that because a few guys can pitch longer than average, that we should expect our guy will. The likely scenario if the Brewers extended Woodruff to age 35 is that for the final years of that deal, we would have a substantial portion of our payroll as "dead weight" in Woodruff and Yelich, which would make it difficult to remain competitive. Sports are a young man's game. Getting emotionally attached to the name on the back of the jersey can lead to bad decisions. I like Woodruff, and I would like to see him extended for a couple of years beyond his current "team control." I don't think he'll do that, as he'll want to cash in on his one chance to do so. If he requires 4-5 years beyond his current team control (which I would if I were him), then I'd trade him and let some other team take the risk of paying him big money for his middle-30's while we have a boatload of new, young talent from the trade.

The reality is that we are set to lose Burnes, Woodruff, Lauer, Houser and Adames after the 2024 season unless they are traded or extended. I am skeptical on extensions for either Burnes or Woodruff, as Burnes will be too expensive and at Woodruff's age he will probably want an extension longer than I'd be comfortable giving. If we're looking at "not pissing off the fans," would the fans be less upset if we trade both of them after '23 than they would if we trade one this offseason and one next? I think not, and I really think fans will be mad if we let 80% of our starting rotation and our starting SS walk for nothing after '24. That's a route the team can't even consider. It's going to be a tough road, but I think the best chance of maintaining "continued competitiveness" without a rebuild period will be to trade one of the "big 2" this offseason, and one next offseason. Whatever way we go, we'll have to rely on young players both from our current system and from trades. So, my opinion (which probably isn't worth much) is that they will dangle both of Burnes and Woodruff on the market and take the offer that makes the most sense while retaining the other. They'll go into next season with a still-strong rotation (Burnes or Woodruff, Peralta, Lauer, Ashby a group including Houser fighting for #5), some rookie starters (Mitchell, Turang, Frelick), and some positions hopefully upgraded by the aforementioned trade. They should also have some money to spend on upgrades with the subtraction of some decent-sized obligations (Burnes/Woodruff, Hader, Cain, Wong) off the books. I think they'll still be in contention for a division title with this team, but if not they'll start the sell-off next trade deadline, with the remainder of the pending FAs traded away before the start of the '24 season.

The reality is that we are set to lose Burnes, Woodruff, Lauer, Houser and Adames after the 2024 season unless they are traded or extended. I am skeptical on extensions for either Burnes or Woodruff, as Burnes will be too expensive and at Woodruff's age he will probably want an extension longer than I'd be comfortable giving. If we're looking at "not pissing off the fans," would the fans be less upset if we trade both of them after '23 than they would if we trade one this offseason and one next? I think not, and I really think fans will be mad if we let 80% of our starting rotation and our starting SS walk for nothing after '24. That's a route the team can't even consider. It's going to be a tough road, but I think the best chance of maintaining "continued competitiveness" without a rebuild period will be to trade one of the "big 2" this offseason, and one next offseason. Whatever way we go, we'll have to rely on young players both from our current system and from trades. So, my opinion (which probably isn't worth much) is that they will dangle both of Burnes and Woodruff on the market and take the offer that makes the most sense while retaining the other. They'll go into next season with a still-strong rotation (Burnes or Woodruff, Peralta, Lauer, Ashby a group including Houser fighting for #5), some rookie starters (Mitchell, Turang, Frelick), and some positions hopefully upgraded by the aforementioned trade. They should also have some money to spend on upgrades with the subtraction of some decent-sized obligations (Burnes/Woodruff, Hader, Cain, Wong) off the books. I think they'll still be in contention for a division title with this team, but if not they'll start the sell-off next trade deadline, with the remainder of the pending FAs traded away before the start of the '24 season.

First off, welcome to the board. I agree with you on the Woodruff extension. As to Yelich, Baseballtradevalues.com has him at a -126.4 value. To put that in perspective, Burnes has a +78.3 value. In other words, if we wanted to get rid of Yelich and his contract, we would have to give the other team Burnes and still pay a significant portion of Yelich's contract. Yelich isn't going anywhere, so we'll just have to hope that he continues to at least be an above average player like he was in '22. He won't be worth the money he's being paid, but at least he's helping the team. He'll be here through 2028 and will be paid deferred salary through 2042, so it's not worth the stress to worry about how to get rid of him... no one is taking that contract. And that is good enough reason to once again state that I agree with you that offering too long an extension to Woodruff (who would be going into his 32-year-old season in the first year of the extension) probably wouldn't be a prudent use of the team's money. If Woodruff would take a two-year extension (which I can't imaging he would take), then extend him. If not, then trade him away before he hits free agency for some highly talented young prospects and remain "continually competitive."

First off, welcome to the board. I agree with you on the Woodruff extension. As to Yelich, Baseballtradevalues.com has him at a -126.4 value. To put that in perspective, Burnes has a +78.3 value. In other words, if we wanted to get rid of Yelich and his contract, we would have to give the other team Burnes and still pay a significant portion of Yelich's contract. Yelich isn't going anywhere, so we'll just have to hope that he continues to at least be an above average player like he was in '22. He won't be worth the money he's being paid, but at least he's helping the team. He'll be here through 2028 and will be paid deferred salary through 2042, so it's not worth the stress to worry about how to get rid of him... no one is taking that contract. And that is good enough reason to once again state that I agree with you that offering too long an extension to Woodruff (who would be going into his 32-year-old season in the first year of the extension) probably wouldn't be a prudent use of the team's money. If Woodruff would take a two-year extension (which I can't imaging he would take), then extend him. If not, then trade him away before he hits free agency for some highly talented young prospects and remain "continually competitive."

I know you know that there is a big variance among prospects. While the slap-hitter in Rookie ball and Julio Rodriguez were both prospects coming into this season, no one would confuse the two. As you have correctly stated, Burnes is in rare air talent-wise. Therefore, he would bring back someone closer to Julio Rodriguez than the aforementioned "slap-hitter in Rookie ball." People bemoan starting prospects as if they are all the same. The guys we're looking at starting next year (potentially Mitchell, Frelick, and Turang) are our first round draft picks in 2018, 2020, and 2021 who have played well during their time in the minors. There's risk to starting anyone, but these are talented guys who we're hoping will be the core of the team for the next half-decade, not some random journeymen. If we do trade Burnes, this group will get a really, really talented prospect as a teammate, and there would be a couple more talented guys added to the Nashville and Biloxi rosters to help out in a couple years. Adding that to a team that already has a lot of talent (even without Burnes) should allow for the Brewers to push for the NL Central title again in 2023. I'd love for the Brewers to have the money to extend all of their current core, while adding a top prospect like Mitchell, Frelick, and Turang to the roster every year rather than all at once. That's how the Dodgers can operate. Unfortunately, the Brewers can't, so we are going to be more dependent on developing and/or trading for good prospects than bigger market teams. We will also have to become accustomed to trading away our favorite players while they are still good if we want to continue to have good young players as our core. That's just the reality of baseball for as long as MLB accepts that some teams should have a decided monetary advantage over others.