monty57

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 don't think smaller revenue teams should ever trade a guy who is on a trajectory to become a superstar for a short-term MLB upgrade. The Brewers are going to find themselves on the other side of that transaction over the next few years, as they will have to trade away guys like Burnes, Woodruff and Adames, and we have to hope we can pick up some young stars in return. So to answer the question, as a Brewer GM, I would never trade a guy like Chourio for a guy like Burnes (speaking in levels of talent and team control), and I would trade a guy like Burnes for a guy like Chourio every time their team control was coming to an end and/or finances mandated it.

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.

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.

I would love to see them get a couple more years out of Woodruff, and I have been trying to convince myself recently that it is a possibility, as they should have a period with a lot of pre-arby guys coming up where we could afford another big salary. Good call Sveumrules that if we did the extension this year we could get another year of the three-headed monster at the top of our rotation before trading away Burnes after next year. My concern with extending Woodruff is his age, as he will be 31 in his last arby year. He knows that he will likely only have one shot at "real money," and he'll probably demand a longer-term extension that would take him well into his mid-30's. Those type of deals can feel good when they're signed, but feel bad when you're overpaying a guy for mediocrity in the final years of the deal. Ideally, we could get an extra two years. Realistically, he'd probably be asking for four or five. I've always had a hard time with the "he's valuable enough in the first couple years to make up for overpaying in the final years" line of logic, as his salary could be a real hurdle if he hits a cliff during the extension. We're always happy when we get something like the Cain deal off the books, so we have to be careful not to jump right into another one.

I would love to see them get a couple more years out of Woodruff, and I have been trying to convince myself recently that it is a possibility, as they should have a period with a lot of pre-arby guys coming up where we could afford another big salary. Good call Sveumrules that if we did the extension this year we could get another year of the three-headed monster at the top of our rotation before trading away Burnes after next year. My concern with extending Woodruff is his age, as he will be 31 in his last arby year. He knows that he will likely only have one shot at "real money," and he'll probably demand a longer-term extension that would take him well into his mid-30's. Those type of deals can feel good when they're signed, but feel bad when you're overpaying a guy for mediocrity in the final years of the deal. Ideally, we could get an extra two years. Realistically, he'd probably be asking for four or five. I've always had a hard time with the "he's valuable enough in the first couple years to make up for overpaying in the final years" line of logic, as his salary could be a real hurdle if he hits a cliff during the extension. We're always happy when we get something like the Cain deal off the books, so we have to be careful not to jump right into another one.

We've had a lot of conversations on this site over the years about "playing for a window," which essentially means lining everything up and using all of your assets to "win now" in a limited period of time. This creates a cycle of (1) begin the rebuild period (2) start adding assets as the prospects hit the majors (3) go over budget and trade anyone you can for pieces that will help you win in the proposed window (4) blow things up and start the cycle over again. Stearns has repeatedly stated (and has been echoed by Attanasio) that they are trying to be "continually competitive." This means that they are not looking at winning in a "competitive window," but will do what they think it takes to stay competitive year-in-and-year-out. To me, this means that they will not let Woodruff, Burnes, Adames, and anyone else they think is valuable to walk in free agency. They also aren't going to do anything that will be detrimental to the future in order to "win now" (i.e. going way over budget or trading away prospects they think will play a significant role in the coming years). They are going to have a hard time remaining "continually competitive" with so many arby guys who will be free agents in the next few years. That will be made harder the longer they hold onto everyone, which is why I think they'll need to trade some of their big names this off-season rather than waiting until next year and having a "fire sale." I think they'll trade Burnes and bring back a lot of talent that will fit in with the prospects we have coming up, that will help us maintain success for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, we'll still have a solid team in 2023 before we'll have to trade away Woodruff, Lauer, and Adames unless one of them will sign for a few years' extension. By that time, hopefully our prospects will have taken steps forward to become the new "core," while we will have another infusion of young talent from the aforementioned trades. It will be a tough path, and there's a chance it will bomb, but I think that's the road they'll take in order to attempt to maintain their "continual competitiveness." Holding onto everyone for one more year would seem to necessitate at least a short "uncompetitive" rebuild period. Notably, it should be easier to trade two aces over a two-year period than it would be to trade them both in the same year. Both Burnes and Woodruff will be highly sought after, but trading them in two seasons would allow them to take the best offer each year, rather than taking the best and second-best offers in one off-season.

You have Turang getting $10M. Do you mean Wong? Otherwise, Wong will get a $2M buyout and Turang would be league minimum. Plus, you have 20 guys and need 26. At league minimum, that's another $4.2M, but I doubt you'll fill all those spots for league minimum, so you'd probably need to figure $10M or so to fill out your bench, bullpen, and 5th starter if you're just putting "generic guy" there. This kind of shows that if we bring everyone back except Wong, and let our free agents walk to free agency, we're going to be around $120M if we do nothing else. Where the ownership group sets the budget after a down season in ticket sales will determine what Stearns can do from here. Note: This is a big reason why the team had to trade Hader, and why I think there is a good chance that one of Burnes/Woodruff gets traded this offseason.

A deal involving Yelich would likely be something like the Reds and Mariners did this past off-season where the Reds had to give the Mariners Winker just to get rid of Suarez’s contract. I don’t want the Brewers to hand someone Burnes just to get out of paying Yelich, so no, I wouldn’t do the deal. Yelich isn’t worth what he’s being paid, but he’s still an above average MLB player who can help the team. When/if we trade guys like Burnes, Woodruff and Adames, we should get as much talent back as possible to play alongside guys like Yelich in hopes of winning a pennant. You only act like the Reds when you want to end up in the Reds’ current situation. We’re not shooting for a rebuild, we still want to win.

We had a lot of injuries to our starters this year, leading to a lot more games that the bullpen had to pitch a lot of innings. The more relievers you have to depend on in a game, the more likely that one of them is going to have an off day. Whether that's due to a starter leaving early due to injury, having to throw a "bullpen game" due to lack of healthy starters, starting a "AAAA guy" who only goes a few innings, or just pulling a starter early because they don't want to see him go through the order one more time, we seem to have had a lot of games that required a lot of bullpen arms.

To the four mentioned in this article: 1) I think Peterson will get an offer in free agency that is higher than the Brewers will be willing to go. 2) I think Boxberger's option will be exercised. The team has relied on him pretty heavily, so I definitely think he's worth the risk at $3M. 3) Narvaez is likely gone unless he comes back really cheap on a one-year "prove it" deal. I think the Brewers will keep Caratini and bring in a RH hitting catcher who can hit LHP. Side note, I hope the league goes to automated ball/strike. A good defensive catcher should be someone who can block balls and throw out runners, not one who is good at fooling the umpires. Narvaez is a bad defensive catcher who has learned how to trick umpires into thinking balls are strikes. He is not a good defensive catcher. 4) Rogers should probably go elsewhere. There is no "positive vibe" that would have him sign a "prove it" deal with the Brewers.

To the four mentioned in this article: 1) I think Peterson will get an offer in free agency that is higher than the Brewers will be willing to go. 2) I think Boxberger's option will be exercised. The team has relied on him pretty heavily, so I definitely think he's worth the risk at $3M. 3) Narvaez is likely gone unless he comes back really cheap on a one-year "prove it" deal. I think the Brewers will keep Caratini and bring in a RH hitting catcher who can hit LHP. Side note, I hope the league goes to automated ball/strike. A good defensive catcher should be someone who can block balls and throw out runners, not one who is good at fooling the umpires. Narvaez is a bad defensive catcher who has learned how to trick umpires into thinking balls are strikes. He is not a good defensive catcher. 4) Rogers should probably go elsewhere. There is no "positive vibe" that would have him sign a "prove it" deal with the Brewers.