monty57

Agree. Cohen has been spending a lot, but he is a smart guy, and he brought in a bunch of his hedge fund guys to help out. They have spent their life focusing on risk, so while he's spending, he isn't going to be foolish.

Agree. If we were to sign one, I would set my sights on Woodruff. But honestly, I don't think we'll extend any of them, and I think that if we do, it won't be long before the "how can we get out of this contract" talks would start. Burnes' contract will be in the $40-50M annual salary range, so he's out of the discussion. Adames was so-so with the Rays (couldn't hit at Tropicana), had a good partial season once traded to the Brewers, and had 4.7 Fangraphs WAR season in '22, but still ended with an OBP under .300. If he wasn't a Brewer but was a free agent, I doubt people would be clamoring to sign him to a long-term deal for $20-$30M/season. That leaves Woodruff, who would be great to sign if we could get him for a couple of his free agent years. My concern is that he'll be 31, and will know that it will be his one chance to sign a big money deal. He'll probably want 4-6 years of free agency bought out, and I think that's too risky for the Brewers. A four-year ('23-'26) deal would be perfect, and could fit nicely into a couple of years where they have a lot of pre-arby guys and could afford Woodruff and Yelich on big-money deals, after which guys like Frelick, Mitchell, etc will start getting more expensive.

Agree. If we were to sign one, I would set my sights on Woodruff. But honestly, I don't think we'll extend any of them, and I think that if we do, it won't be long before the "how can we get out of this contract" talks would start. Burnes' contract will be in the $40-50M annual salary range, so he's out of the discussion. Adames was so-so with the Rays (couldn't hit at Tropicana), had a good partial season once traded to the Brewers, and had 4.7 Fangraphs WAR season in '22, but still ended with an OBP under .300. If he wasn't a Brewer but was a free agent, I doubt people would be clamoring to sign him to a long-term deal for $20-$30M/season. That leaves Woodruff, who would be great to sign if we could get him for a couple of his free agent years. My concern is that he'll be 31, and will know that it will be his one chance to sign a big money deal. He'll probably want 4-6 years of free agency bought out, and I think that's too risky for the Brewers. A four-year ('23-'26) deal would be perfect, and could fit nicely into a couple of years where they have a lot of pre-arby guys and could afford Woodruff and Yelich on big-money deals, after which guys like Frelick, Mitchell, etc will start getting more expensive.

I'm not a fan of signing extensions to players once they're already in their arby years, as it's basically a free agent deal (very little discount) and the Brewers can't build their roster on long-term free agent contracts. If they are to do one, I think it should be to a game-changer, like Braun and Yelich were when they signed. I think Adames is a fine player, but he's a guy who will get a few All-Star appearances, not a guy who is regularly vying for MVP titles. Even if we didn't play in an economic structure that is slanted against us, I'd have to think long and hard about an Adames extension. He has had an up-and-down career, and his replacement is already in-house and MLB ready. Even if the contract were smaller, I think the best bet is to let Adames play for the Brewers this year, and trade him away after the season for a nice group of young players with a lot of team control, letting Turang take over SS in '24. If we're looking at anything close to $300M, there is no way the Brewers should consider it. I'd be hesitant to give that to Burnes, and he's far more worthy of that contract.

I'm not a fan of signing extensions to players once they're already in their arby years, as it's basically a free agent deal (very little discount) and the Brewers can't build their roster on long-term free agent contracts. If they are to do one, I think it should be to a game-changer, like Braun and Yelich were when they signed. I think Adames is a fine player, but he's a guy who will get a few All-Star appearances, not a guy who is regularly vying for MVP titles. Even if we didn't play in an economic structure that is slanted against us, I'd have to think long and hard about an Adames extension. He has had an up-and-down career, and his replacement is already in-house and MLB ready. Even if the contract were smaller, I think the best bet is to let Adames play for the Brewers this year, and trade him away after the season for a nice group of young players with a lot of team control, letting Turang take over SS in '24. If we're looking at anything close to $300M, there is no way the Brewers should consider it. I'd be hesitant to give that to Burnes, and he's far more worthy of that contract.

Right, which is why he did not sign the contract. The Brewers need to be disciplined, and it appears they have been. As @Robocaller said, these deals should only be done if the player takes a significant discount. I said that the Brewers should offer these deals to all of our good pre-arby guys. I understand that many of these guys will not sign them. Some players will see the benefit of signing a guaranteed extension for a discount, others will want to maximize their earnings by going year-to-year. Early extensions are just one tool for the Brewers to use. They aren’t a panacea. But, they are an important tool for small revenue teams to try to keep players for an extra year or two and control their cost in a world where they can’t compete with the big markets in free agency.

If Hiura had signed the Peralta deal, he’d be making $2.25M this year, which is probably what the Brewers will owe him after agreeing to arby, and would be guaranteed about $10.5M over the next three years. Even if the players don’t work out, the deal still isn’t going to hurt too much. There’s risk in anything they do. If they stick to the math, and only sign the guys who will agree to their deal, they can control the risk. That Hiura, Villar, and Hall didn’t sign means that the Brewers do stick to their guns. If they player demands more, then no extension is done. We have not regretted any of the early extensions we’ve done. We have regretted most of the late extensions we’ve done.

I want to add to this that successful early extensions greatly improve trade value. Woodruff is undoubtedly a better pitcher than Peralta, but according to Baseball Trade Values, Woodruff's value is 50.5. while Peralta is 63.8. Woodruff will be 30 next year, has 4.161 years of service time, is a free agent in '25, and is expected to get $13.25M in '23. Peralta turns 27 next June, has 4.09 years of service time, will not be a free agent until '27 (per Fangraphs, Cots has him a FA in '26, but I think Fangraphs is right), and will make $3.735M in '23. Both of these guys have nearly the same service time, but we could field of guys on Peralta's contract for around $97M, while Woodruff's final arby year will be close to $20M, and Peralta will still be under "team control" for two years after Woodruff hits free agency. How are these deals bad for the Brewers, and why shouldn't we be offering them to Contreras, Frelick, Mitchell, Turang, and every other good prospect shortly after they hit the majors? Even if half of the prospects flamed out, we would still "win" if all of them accepted. Of course they all won't accept, at which point we will know who will be long-term pieces, and who are "year-to-year" guys who won't be extended.

Not only did it move quickly, the Mets blew the expected price range for free agents through the roof, then the other teams with extra money to spend followed suit, pushing prices up on everyone. All the other rich owners have to be trying to decide what they're going to do if Cohen and the Mets do this again next year. If they decide to compete with the Mets if they do it again, the Brewers' days of signing free agents will be history. I thought we'd make a push for a "setup guy," but at this point, I'm not sure. I'm glad we have young depth for the 'pen, but would like another "proven" arm or two for the back-end of the 'pen.

I look at it as transferring risk, much like the insurance industry. The team is assuming the injury/bad play risk, so the player has to accept less money than they may get if they maintained the risk and went year-to-year. Risk transfer has been calculated by insurance companies since the days of Columbus and Magellan, and they do pretty well with it. Well run baseball organizations can as well, as long as they stick to their math. To me, there is no reason for a team to sign an extension in the arby/pre-arby years unless the player agrees to a substantial discount. The farther out from free agency, the deeper the discount. This is essentially the player "paying his premiums" for the transferring of risk to the team. Once a player gets into their arby years (where Burnes, Woodruff and Adames currently sit), the team is basically signing a free agent deal with very limited discount. The Brewers can't live in this arena, at least for their star players. They should try to extend every good pre-arby player they can to a discounted deal that gives them 1-2 extra years of service time. These are the Asnby/Peralta/Lucroy/Braun (first deal) type of deals. There is risk that the player doesn't pan out. But, let's say Ashby is never better than a middle reliever. With his contract, he won't be that overpaid as a veteran middle reliever, and he certainly won't be the main reason the Brewers can't make other moves. Even if he completely flames out, the team won't be that bad off. If a player opts to go year-to-year rather than accepting the early (discounted) extension, that's fine. It's their right to do so, and they are maintaining most of the risk. The Brewers need to accept that they are year-to-year players, and they shouldn't grow too attached. Trade them when it makes the most sense, which will normally be around 1-2 years prior to their hitting free agency. It's a business. "Math nerds" are taking over the front offices, and from their standpoint early extensions should be very appealing.

I get what you're saying, and making sure fans continue to buy tickets is always a consideration. That said, any team that makes it's decisions based on appeasing the "casual fan" is not going to be a successful organization. With the guys they have, they are still long-shots to win it all. Keeping them to "go for it" one more year doesn't assure them anything... they might not even make the playoffs. We don't have the resources to quickly rebuild the major league team through free agency. Losing the potential guys we could get in trade would lead to a long downturn, and would be a fatal error by Brewer management. The fan base will be fine as they see the newly acquired players putting up all-star seasons for half a decade while Burnes is playing out a $40M+/year contract. At the end of the day, it is "the name on the front of the shirt" that fans cheer for. Shortsighted fans will be upset by the trades, but the good thing about shortsighted fans is that they will remain shortsighted, and will be happy when the new guys start playing well. Trading Lucroy and Gomez allowed the Brewers to turn things around much more quickly than most thought possible. No one is bemoaning the fact that we didn't extend Lucroy and Gomez. Trading Burnes, Woodruff and Adames will be what allows us to continue on as a playoff team for years to come instead of taking one long-shot chance and then suffering through a rebuild. Then the following year we'll trade Peralta, and so on. Extending players early in their career and trading them before they hit free agency is the way for a team like the Brewers to remain "continually competitive." Fans will get used to it, or they'll migrate to a big market team that doesn't have to operate under the constraints put on the Brewers.

If that is truly the case (we won't get enough to make it worthwhile), then Arnold set back the franchise a long ways by not trading them this offseason, especially since we're still far from being World Series favorites. I don't think that's the case, and I think teams will be tripping over each other lining up to get Burnes or Woodruff into their rotation for a season, and to a lesser degree to get Adames for SS. We'll see, but if we ride those three to free agency and accept draft pick compensation, we are going to have an extended period of sub-.500 seasons starting in '25.

Are you saying that you don't think a team would give us any value for Burnes or Woodruff next offseason? I disagree. Every team in baseball would love to have either of those guys in their rotation, and will be willing to pay far more than the value of a compensatory draft pick for one year of their service. Not trading them next offseason would severely harm the future of the franchise.

The team has been quiet in the free agent market, but they haven't been quiet. They've made three big trades that have done quite a bit to reshape the roster, including strengthening our position of greatest need (catcher), adding some bullpen depth, and clearing around $10M from payroll while making room for the rookies many people think are ready to step into MLB roles. Now that we're getting clear of the mega-deals, and into the (roughly) $7-8M/year deals, I expect we'll add some supporting cast, but I never really expected a "core player" to come from free agency. We should use free agency to round out the roster on 1-2 year deals, not to get our star players. This deal to Segura (2/$17) would have seemed to have made sense, so I wonder if we were having any talks with him and his agent.

Since they extended Peralta and Ashby, I would assume they made similar offers to other players as well. The further along a player's pre-arby/arby schedule a player gets, the less "team friendly" the deal gets, so I fully expect them to make offers to most, if not all, of their talented young, pre-arby guys soon. Contreras would be included in this. Some of them will see the value in guaranteeing life-altering money, while others will choose to take some risk and go year-to-year in an attempt to maximize their earnings. The Brewers will have to act accordingly. In our current case, that means they get some extra time with Peralta (who accepted the offer), while trading away Burnes and Woodruff who went year-to-year. 2023 should be a fun year watching the loaded rotation, along with what will hopefully be an improved lineup. It will also be a year where some guys who will be "core" players for the next half-decade get some much needed experience, as they'll be heavily relied upon after Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, Lauer, etc are traded away prior to 2024. I'm excited to watch this year, and I'm also excited to see what we'll receive in trade after the year is done that will hopefully build our future playoff rosters. In his short tenure, I think that Arnold has shown the willingness to trade, and some aptitude in getting a good deal. We'll need that moving forward.

What I’m saying is that the player is granted a full year’s service time, regardless of how much time he spent on the major league roster. The team that was holding him in the minors to save service time would actually get less time out of the player.

I’d counter that. Imagine holding a guy back for a year of control, then having him land in the top tier ROY voting, so you lose that year of service time anyhow.

The Mets really skewed the market this off-season. Mix that with the Giants just missing out on a few big players, and they’re now going to pay up for the lesser guys. The Brewers have to hope that the Mets will have all their mega-deals in place in future years. If the market keeps going up at this rate, the Brewers won’t be able to afford free agent batboys.

If they are in the (I believe) top two in ROY voting, they will be given a full year’s service time regardless of how long they were in the majors. In other words, the Brewers could lose the production they would have received for a couple months, and still lose a full year’s service time (not just Super Two status). The rule was put in place to deter teams from “manipulating service time.” It’s more than just the potential draft pick. That was probably just thrown in as a sweetener to get the owners to pass it.

I was just thinking about how the new rules will affect the Brewers’ decision on their rookies. The “list makers” are no longer just for fun, they have a lot of responsibility. A prospect’ s future will be seriously affected by who makes it onto the list. If he’s MLB ready and on the lists, he should be on the opening day roster. Could the Brewers be waiting on the updated lists to come out, as this could be meaningful in deciding some of their guys’ futures. A one-year veteran contract makes more sense if he’d be starting for the first couple months.

I think this is a good take. The Brewers would have put him in a strict platoon, and as a RH hitter, that means he’d play about 25% of the time. The Reds can make him a starter. If he’s playing well at all, they will undoubtedly trade him to a contender at the deadline, which means that he will get those “meaningful games,” and he’ll get an additional $2M for being traded, which teams probably aren’t willing to give him right now. From his standpoint, the Brewers would have had to offer him at a minimum $9.5M, and probably more than that because the contract with the Reds looks like a good deal for him (trade clause and probably guaranteed playing time). While he would fill a need for the Brewers, it might not be worth around $10M for a guy who would probably get 200-300 PAs.

The new draft compensation for Rookie of the Year was put in place so teams would have incentive not to keep top prospects in the minors to start the season. When given the opportunity last year to be the starter, Taylor flopped, so I think he’ll be the fourth OF from day one. The team may find a way to keep Turang down, but I think Mitchell and Frelick will be up on opening day. They both have a legitimate shot at winning Rookie of the Year, and they could lose the year of eligibility even if they’re kept down.

I’ll stand by my quote: “We have a team full of slightly-above-average position players. It’s hard to improve at any position without spending a lot of money in free agency, which is something the Brewers can’t do. “ The Brewers can, and do, spend on free agency. In order to improve on what they have, they would have to do something like one of the monster deals going around. If they signed someone for let’s say $35M, in addition to Yelich’s $26M, they wouldn’t be able to afford the 17 or so arby players they have on the roster. So in order for them to afford a high-priced guy in this market, they’d have to trade a lot of our arby guys, and then be stuck with two guaranteed big-money, long-term deals on the books. I guess semantically you’re right, they won’t do it, because it would not be a very smart move, either as a “financial move,” or as a “baseball move.”

I was referring to the end of the year, where they waited until Sept call-ups, presumably so that he would retain his rookie status for ‘23 in hopes of getting the ROY draft pick. Many, including myself, thought it would be Frelick getting the call, but the Brewers chose Mitchell, and he proved up to the task.

I’m definitely not confident in Toro and Miller being anything special. You may be right that Turang is held down through the Suoer 2 cutoff, but I don’t expect the Brewers to spend any significant money on a stopgap who will start for several weeks. Even most big market clubs who are holding back a top prospect wouldn’t normally do that. If they keep Turang down to save a year’s service time, we’ll probably just have to hope that Toro/Miller/Brosseau can hold the fort adequately for a few weeks. We did that last year in CF with Taylor and Davis until Mitchell’s rookie status was secured for this season, so we’d probably do it again. I’ve said in the past that I’d be alright with them making a move that would keep Turang in AAA until an injury hit, but at this point I don’t really see anyone who would be a clear upgrade for us unless we make a big trade. Signing one of the “scrap heap” free agent guys seems like it would be spending money for at best a lateral move.