monty57

I completely agree… then I go back to the McCutchen signing where everyone was saying the same thing. I don’t trust that if we sign a former “name” player to fill a specific role that he won’t be given far more playing time than he should. If used correctly, a veteran like Myers would be a good addition to the team for the right price. I’m just skeptical about his being used correctly.

Then go buy a team. However, most people who have the financial wherewithal to accumulate a large fortune understand why doing what you’re suggesting might be a bad idea. In Attanasio’s early years, he tried “spending up” to win. Agents learned to bypass Melvin and call Attanasio directly, leading to signings like Suppan, Lohse, and Looper. Attanasio learned that this wasn’t the best way to run the team, and has been relatively successful using his current strategy… That’s what rich people do, not blow their fortune chasing the white whale.

It’s a limited partnership, not a C corp.

I don’t think that’s true. There are a handful of teams in large media markets who can spend hundreds of millions on payroll and still make a boatload of profit. There are a bunch of middle-market teams who can occasionally bump up payroll somewhere close to the luxury tax when they’re going all in. Then there are the small revenue teams who just can’t spend that kind of money. If the Brewers spent to the luxury tax, the ownership group would lose $100M, and I highly doubt they keep that in their bank accounts. It would bankrupt them and the franchise.

I think Attanasio learned not to try to outspend the other guy. With the way baseball salaries are set up (pre-arby, arby, FA), small revenue teams have to load up on young talent that they can control for less-than-market prices for six years. That means we have to rely on our good prospects, and have to trade some guys we like when they start getting expensive. It’s just the reality of baseball under the current system.

The Brewers need to do what they’ve been doing, which is offering good prospects extensions within their first year or two. That will give them eight years instead of six. They risk the player not working out, but don’t risk a franchise-crippling contract money-wise. And yes, they will often trade players when they’re a year or two out from free agency…especially the good ones who will bring back a lot of young talent. Small revenue teams have to maintain a lot of young talent, and trading away “proven” guys is one way to bring in that talent.

Two thing on this. First, define “plenty of playing time.” I’m fine with guys like Jace Peterson sitting on the bench until they prove they deserve to get in the lineup. I’d prefer not doing that to our top infield prospect. If he’s not starting at the MLB level, I’d rather he start out playing everyday in AAA until someone gets hurt. Second, projections are not predictions. A projection just takes what a player has done and tries to project a statistically probable line for the coming season. That would not “disagree” with the quoted text. Depending on the players in question, there could be more variance from either the prospect or the veteran. Anderson was a quality MLB player who has had some down years, while Drury has been a so-so MLB player who had a hot first half last year, leading to him being targeted at the trade deadline. Turang is a “bat to ball”, slick-fielding prospect. I honestly don’t know which of those players will perform best in ‘22. We have Turang at league minimum, and it would cost around $17M over two years for the others (one is already gone). We could very easily get into another “McCutchen situation” where we continue to play the inferior player just because he’s a veteran and we spent a (relatively) lot of money to acquire him. Just because playing McCutchen the way we did last year potentially cost us a playoff spot doesn’t mean that acquiring Anderson would do the same, but it is a possibility. Just because a guy’s a veteran and costs more doesn’t mean he’s a better solution than the young, inexpensive guy you already have. Finally, let’s forget Turang for a second. Toro isn’t far off from being in the “top prospect” category himself, and Miller is an average-ish bench player. Why is Anderson naturally a better option than either of these guys? He was solid, but hasn’t been for a few years. Is it worth $15-20M over two years to see if he can regain lost glory? Why not just see if Toro can live up to his potential? Any “sure thing” upgrades are going to cost $20M+ per year. You’re not going to find certainty in the bargain bins the Brewers are forced to shop in.

No, we’re required to field a 26 man roster, with league minimum being $700,000 per player. Spending money can help you improve, but it doesn’t always work that way. For instance, I love the Contreras trade, and I’d take him at league minimum pay over whoever we could have signed as a free agent for a lot more money. To topic, we possibly could have spent $8.5M per year for Drury, who may not outperform Toro and Miller as a bench player over the next two years, and probably won’t outperform any of our starters over that time frame. 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.

I agree that we should look to find a guy or two for the ‘pen that we can insert in the setup role. As to the infield, we have Adames (109 wRC+, gold glove defense), Urias (110 wRC+), Tellez (110 wRC+), and Contrares (138 wRC+) who have MLB experience (numbers are for ‘22), along with our top infield prospect Turang who Fangraphs lists as a 60 fielder, and Steamer projects for a 94 wRC+. Then there are three guys fighting for bench spots in Toro, Miller and Hiura. Is that where you see “crap,” or are you saying Turang, Adames, Urias, Contreras, and Tellez are crap? Some don’t want to see so much reliance on rookies, and (I think) most think Urias is better defensively at second than third, but I wouldn’t call our guys “crap.” Personally, I wouldn’t trade Urias or Turang for Drury straight-up.

By "prove it," I mean that he's getting $8M, but if he has a big offensive year he can decline his option and sign a bigger deal for '24. If he flops, he can exercise his option and still get $7M. With the way contracts are going, if he had a good offensive year last year, he would have received more than 2/$15. By doing it as a one-year-with-player-option deal, he has a better chance at a big payday than if he had simply signed a two-year deal.

I just hate the idea of taking the guy who is far-and-away our best IF prospect and sitting him on the bench. Either let him start, or let him play everyday in AAA. I get that we all like him more than Miller or Toro. That's why he needs to get everyday PAs. Bringing him up as a backup would waste his service time and probably hurt his development relative to letting him start in either AAA or MLB. Let Toro or Miller ride the pine and get a handful of PAs per week while being paid league minimum. That's a good use of their pre-arby "cheap years," while it would be a waste of Turang's.

Good deal for Narvaez. Basically a one-year, "prove it" deal, but he gets the added insurance that if he bombs he can exercise his option and get paid an additional $7M.

Agree, which is why it’s nice to have Taylor around. He’s proven to be a quality backup, so hold him until he’s forced off the roster.

I figure Yelich will be the DH next year (‘24). so that might give us some time with Mitchell, Frelick, Wiemer as starters until Chourio is up for good. That could mean that Taylor could still be the backup. How all the guys progress and get promoted should determine Taylor’s fate. He’s not going to block any of them, but if someone’s going to just sit the bench, I’d rather it be him, with Wiemer playing every day in AAA. If Chourio and Wiemer come up sooner, Taylor will be gone sooner.

Yeah, "prospect" is a pretty broad net. There's a big difference between "The Brewers acquire a prospect" and "The Brewers acquire a Top 10 prospect." When I see the first, I'm assuming it's a "for cash considerations" deal. When I see the second, I clear the calendar because I know I'm going to be spending all night reading up on the deal. Everyone in the minors is a prospect. Few will ever play on a MLB field. But, as I've said a couple of times recently, even guys who play for a few pre-arby seasons are valuable additions, especially to a small revenue team like the Brewers. We need 26 men on the roster, so if someone like Lutz (since he's been brought up) can man a backup OF spot for a season or two at league minimum and save us from spending a few million on a veteran, it's something.

I agree, but I've been wrong on most of my "pre-offseason" thoughts. I figured Boxberger was a lock to be back at $3M, Wong's option wouldn't be exercised, Renfroe would be a Brewer in '23, and they would shop one of the "big three." The front office seems to have had a plan in place for the other moves, so maybe they saw something they didn't like in Boxberger. His numbers seem to have suggested that he should've been worth the $3M risk. The back of the bullpen seems to be the #1 area they still need to address.

At least to some extent, I defended Hiura last year, but it seemed pretty obvious that they weren't high on him, so I was pretty surprised that they offered him arbitration. They need a utility guy or two on the roster. I don't see a need for Hiura, especially since we got Winker for DH. I'd think that Hiura will be traded away pretty soon, setting up a Spring Training battle between Miller and Toro for the final spot on the bench. I initially thought that this acquisition could be the end of the speculation of whether we'd go after a third baseman, but I think it could have more effect on Turang. If we acquire a 3B, Urias would probably move to 2B, and Miller / Toro would be the utility guy, allowing for Turang to start the season in AAA. I'd be fine with that. I'd rather see someone like Miller getting sporadic playing time on the bench instead of Turang or Urias.

A) Why do people who are fans of a small-market team continually complain about the team's lack of spending? B) Why is spending more money so important? If the team can improve while spending less money, that's a really good thing, and that seems to be what has happened so far this year. C) Why is this another "we need to spend money" / "who can we target in free agency" thread, instead of a discussion of the thread's topic, which is obtaining a potential utility guy in Miller, and the DFAing of a site-favorite prospect in Feliciano? There is a whole section on the site dedicated to trade rumors and free agent speculation.

Makes sense with Mitchell/Frelick. Regarding Taylor: When Chourio is brought up, he will be playing every day. If Mitchell, Frelick and Wiemer have all proven to be MLB players by that time, they will split time at the other positions. That is when I think Taylor should be traded away. He is valuable to the Brewers in his current role, so there is no reason to trade him until we have better options. Right now, I'd rather have Taylor in the mix, even if it's as "4th outfielder," as we know he can play that role well. Leave Wiemer in AAA where he can play every day, and bring him up when someone gets hurt. He will get his shot. So, Taylor's tenure with the Brewers is somewhat contingent on how the other guys perform. If all of them do well, he'll probably be gone sometime in '24. If one of them doesn't pan out, he'll probably be here until he hits free agency, or until one of our younger, lesser-discussed OF prospects takes his spot and fills the role for league minimum when Taylor is making a couple million in arby. He's one of those "valuable when he's cheap" players that the Brewers need to rely on in order to stay competitive on a limited payroll. Jace Peterson was another example of this, and hopefully the Brewers can keep churning these guys out of their farm. They're obviously not as valuable as the "potential Rookie of the Year" guys, but they're necessary for the Brewers continued success.

Taylor is a nice fit on this team. He's proven to be a quality 4th outfielder, and being right-handed is a plus when Yelich, Frelick, Mitchell, and Winker are all lefties. Whoever gets dubbed "the starter" isn't quite as meaningful on a Counsell-run team. He has shown through the years that he makes sure everyone gets plenty of playing time. At one point I was ready to see what Taylor could do as a starter, but now that we have so much young OF talent ready to step in, he'll likely settle in as a 4th OF. He'll get a few starts a week, starting every game against LHP, and giving the other guys days off. A lot can happen, so I'm glad he's still on the roster and don't see him getting traded at least until the youngsters have a season or two under their belts. 2023: Yelich (LF), Frelick (CF), Mitchell (RF), Taylor (4th), Winker (DH) 2024: Yelich (DH) Mitchell (LF), Frelick (CF), Wiemer (RF), Taylor (4th) Chourio up whenever he's ready to alter the aforementioned plans. When he's up and playing, assuming the other guys have all panned out, then I think Taylor will be traded. Also, I don't know which of Mitchell/Frelick will be CF and which will be RF. I think they're kind of interchangeable that way, which is a good problem.

Ruiz should definitely have range, but he's still raw in the OF, as he came up as a infielder. He'll probably take some bad routes to balls until he gets more experience. The scouting reports I read when we traded for him suggested that the scouts thought he could stick at CF, but he needs more reps. It sounds like the A's are planning on giving him those reps in the MLB outfield, so I'd expect some highlight-reel plays where he can get to balls other players couldn't, and he's going to have some plays where he looks foolish, simply because he hasn't been in the OF for long. Most players have seen thousands of fly balls by the time they hit the MLB OF. Ruiz will be more like hundreds. Some of those fly balls will be coming at him at speeds over 100 MPH.

Here's how I see it: Lets say the Brewers can afford a $120,000,000 payroll. There are 26 players, so that's $4,615,385 on average per player. League minimum salary is $700,000, so for every league minimum guy on the roster, you can have an $8.5M guy and stay within budget. If we want a $26M guy on the roster, that's about 6x our "average player," so you basically need 6 pre-arby guys on the roster for every $26M player on the roster. This isn't exact, we could have a whole lot of crappy $2-4M veteran journeymen, but you get the picture. Bottom line is that we can't afford many big money players, and if we want them, we need to have a bunch of pre-arby guys on the roster. Some of these guys will be "top prospects" who have been recently called up, but a lot of them have to be guys like Payamps who can get them a little bit of value for around league minimum. So, for those hoping we sign free agents so we don't have to rely on the rookies, you can't really have it both ways. Having the rookies allows us to have some higher-priced guys. You aren't going to win with a team full of $4.6M veterans... you probably wouldn't win 70 games. Therefore, we need to rely heavily on our farm, and getting a guy like Payamps thrown into a trade is much more beneficial to the Brewers than it is to a bigger revenue team.

I guess that if the Brewers sign Chourio to a 13-year deal the day he steps on a MLB field that would take him into his early 30's, it might be okay. I really hope the Brewers never sign a 13-year deal to someone who is already past his arby/pre-arby years. I get what teams are doing. They're staying under the luxury tax cap by signing lower AAV deals, expecting to cut the player long before the end of the deal, but that's not something the Brewers should be doing. It hurts to have 1/4 of payroll going to someone who is still an above-average player. I can't imagine having that anchor on payroll for several years for someone who's not even playing. It hurts the Brewers that they can't do this, and it hurts the Brewers because it helps teams avoid the luxury tax/revenue sharing that helps the Brewers "remain competitive" revenue-wise.

That right there shows how far we've come. I'm amazed at how well Stearns & Co. rebuilt the farm while playing playoff-caliber baseball at the MLB level.

Regarding the relievers, who were essentially throw-ins because the trade looks like a landslide victory even without them: Payamps is probably going to be on the MLB roster as a middle reliever, as he's out of options. He's in his final pre-arby year, so he'll be playing for around league minimum, and if he can keep his ERA in the 3's like he has in 2019, 2020 and 2021, he should be useful. Steamer projects him for a 4.11 ERA, 7.72 K/9, 3.03 BB/9 with a 43.4% Ground ball rate. He's not someone you build a team around, but a league minimum guy who can eat up some middle-relief innings for you is necessary for every team in baseball. Like anyone, he might blow up, but he does have some track record to show that he'll help the Brewers this year. All-in-all, adding him to the deal probably saves us a couple million we would've had to spend on a veteran reliever. Yeager is going straight to the minors and may never leave. If he gets his command issues fixed, he could be a good reliever. That could be said about a lot of guys, and the odds are probably against that happening. These guys probably aren't worth getting too excited about, but I'm sure Payamps will play with our emotions through the season... hopefully more in a positive sense than a negative one. Relievers will do that to you.