monty57

...and Hunter Morris was sent down after a few days of bad ST performance, opening the door for a multitude of shortstops to fail at first base, so I agree that a hot first week could cement Francisco as at least the large part of the platoon at 1B. The scarier part is that Reynolds will probably be relied on to play a lot of games at 3B, especially if Ramirez misses time due to injury. I have to figure that just the defense of Reynolds at 3B and Francisco at 1B will cost us quite a few runs/wins, not to mention the below-average production they could bring with their bats.

O-fer

Has the MLB put in any rules about the teams that have already lost 1st round picks that then acquire the other QO'd players and then trading them in prearranged deals for teams that don't want to lose their first round pick? Are you required to keep a player so long? Someone here will probably be able to pull up the exact rule, but I don't believe you can trade a player signed as a free agent until several months into the season. I think this has been a rule for a long time.

It is fun to watch markets, because you never know how they're going to act. However, as long as the league minimum remains ridiculously low relative to free agent contracts, pre-arby players are going to have incentive to extend. Since they can't choose the team who drafts them, and since they are under "team control" for six years that don't pay them like a pro athlete is normally paid, they either have to accept what the team is willing/able to pay them, or they are going to have to take the risk that they may get injured or underperform and find themselves looking for a "normal job" for the rest of their lives. Take Segura for example. The Simmons deal set the market, but both the Brewers and Segura still have to agree. If the Brewers are not willing to pay an equivalent to the Simmons deal, and Segura isn't willing to take less, then the risk stays on Segura. Not including any signing bonus (I don't know what he got), he's probably made around $600,000, so after taxes, agent fees, etc, he's probably netted around $300,000. Therefore, he's probably not set for retirement. He'll be guaranteed around $550,000 this year, netting say $300,000 take home. God forbid something happens that ends his career this season, he will be out looking for work by the end of the year. That's a lot of risk... be guaranteed set for life or go flip burgers. The Brewers (or any team) should only sign the extensions if they get enough of a discount to make it worth the additional risk they are assuming. Players may turn down the lower offers "small market" teams can afford, but they then keep immense risk on themselves. The rules as they are set should keep the market from acting "freely" and ballooning as much as the free agent market, which is not tethered with things like "team control" and pre-arby/arby years. I generally like early extensions for star players, but I have no problem with players choosing to go year-to-year to free agency. That's their choice and more power to them if they're willing to take the risk to get maximum dollars. I think that small market teams need to treat these players differently, and look to trade them early in the arbitration years to get maximum value from them since they're going to walk anyways. Hopefully they can net a player or two in trade who will be someone they can extend long-term. Let the big market teams (or small market teams with short-term time horizons) take them on for the last couple of arby years and see them walk as free agents.

The importance of the farm is that it allows teams to be young, talented and relatively inexpensive, only using free agency to fill in holes around the young, talented, inexpensive players. Because of the lack of talent on our farm, the Brewers have had to pay big salaries to guys who are expected to be top producers on the team, while extending guys from the bygone era where we had good homegrown talent... the pool which has now pretty much drained. Several posters have mentioned the black hole at 1B throughout the system, and 3B once Ramirez is gone, but Melvin also had to use his available cash to sign a starting pitcher (for the second year in a row) when our top four prospects (Thornburg, Nelson, Jungmann and Hellweg) are pitchers. These guys are all 24 or 25 years old. Meanwhile, Davis and Gennett, who have always been behind the aforementioned pitchers on the prospect lists, will be relied upon as starters. If they succeed, the franchise will be in better shape in the future, so I'm glad they're getting a shot, but neither was ever tabbed as someone who would be an everyday major leaguer. But taking this further, a good farm allows the team the flexibility to trade away players to keep more talent in the system. We saw a little peek at this when Aoki was traded because of Davis, but we don't have the talent on the farm to trade a good player while they're still good and could get a large return. It would be very nice to be able to trade guys like Gallardo and Lohse because the SP on the farm were forcing their way onto the MLB roster, but I don't really see any position where this is a possibility. Without this "recycling of talent," the Brewers will continue signing free agents to fill holes created when other players leave, and never trading anyone of value unless they're in their walk year and we're out of contention. This strategy will probably keep fans interested enough to buy tickets, but will not allow us to have a really good team for an extended period. The only way we'll have a really good team is if we get to the position where a strong farm is pumping star talent to the MLB team on a regular basis.

It's players that continually have to have excuses made for them that have me concerned over signing a deal that takes on all the risk of guaranteeing the player a lot of money for a lot of years. I guess I may be getting the threads mixed, because I'm looking at Segura's long-term moreso than just looking at him a player right now. Without considering contracts, I like Segura and am very glad we have him. I was ecstatic when the Brewers finally broke down and traded Greinke, and think we need more of those deals to bring in more young talent like Segura. We need more players like him. I think that his true ability with the bat is somewhere between his first and second halves of last season. As long as he keeps his speed, he'll hit for a higher average (lot of infield hits), steal a lot of bases and be able to make some wide-ranging plays at shortstop. As he ages, his batting average, stolen bases and defense will drop, and his power will probably go up a bit. However, he did look bad in the second half, a lot of his batting average came from infield hits, some of which could be outs in future years, and his OBP was only .035 higher than his average. I think he'll do well, but he's not a "sure thing," and that cloud of uncertainty makes me question whether we should sign him to an extension right now that will guarantee him to be paid $15MM or so a year six or seven years from now. Every extension has risk, but I think it's higher for Segura than it was when we were discussing similar things for Braun and Fielder after their rookie seasons (although I think I was one of the only people saying we should extend Fielder at that time, because those type deals weren't happening back then). They didn't need excuses. They were Top 100 prospects who became top 20-ish guys, and didn't fall apart in the second half of their first MLB season. Maybe the excuses for Segura are valid, maybe they're not. Should Milwaukee be willing to risk a lot of money over a lot of years (signing him to a deal that pays him like a star player) in hopes that they are? I don't like sounding like I'm putting Segura down... I really do like him and think he's the best young talent that we have (Peralta next and then a big drop-off). I'm just trying to look at both sides of things and temper my expectations. It's possible that he'll be a .900 OPS guy, but it's also possible he'll hit .260 with a sub-.300 OBP. I think he'll probably fit somewhere in the middle, but I think some fans will be ready to call him a bust if he settles in as a mid-.700 OPS guy, which is pretty good for a SS, but far below some people's expectations.

More information is not a bad thing. After Segura's hot start last season, it was easy to envision him among the elite young players in the game, but the Brewers can't let emotions cloud judgement. To the theory of this thread, isn't it also a possibility that by playing non-stop, Segura was ahead of the pitchers at the start of the season, leading to a hot start, then as the pitchers "found their groove," they started getting him out? I like Segura, but I think we've elevated him to a platform above his true ability. He's probably a good player, but not a great player. Great players are the ones that need to be locked up ASAP. Until we get a clearer picture, now that the price tag for an extension seems to have gone up, it wouldn't hurt to get more clarity before rushing to sign him at "any cost." I have a feeling that if we had a Braun or Fielder type prospect, we wouldn't be so high on Segura, Davis and even Gennett. Since they're the best we have, we're putting unfair expectations on them.

Good to hear that everything seems okay. Baseball gets put on the back burner when discussing things like cancer. But to the baseball side, this stood out to me in the article: The sprained left knee that limited him to 92 games in 2013 was fully healed long before Ramirez had his colon surgery. I hope that's true, and I hope that age does not hit Aramis this season. He is one of the big "ifs" that need to go right for the Brewers to have any shot this season.

I agree. The reason it's meaningful is that Simmons is a very good comp for determining salary, and will now be what Segura's camp will use if the Brewers want to talk extension. While a bit expensive, the reasons I think the contract is good for Atlanta, but questionable for Milwaukee are: (A) Simmons is more "certain," while Segura has more to prove. Simmons' defense is not likely to falter, so it's less important for his bat to improve. Segura has to outhit Simmons by a fairly wide margin in order to make them "equal," and that's been erratic. (B) The teams are in a different place. Simmons is one part of a young, talented core that is already one of the best teams in baseball, and is now getting locked up long-term to keep the team relevant for the next 5-6 years. If the Brewers signed a similar deal, a mid-to-late-30's Braun would be the only current Brewer still on the roster in the last two years of the deal, and there is little talent in the minors to step in and play at an All-Star level to keep the Brewers good. It could be argued that the lack of young talent makes it more important to extend Segura, but I think the Brewers are heading for a big rebuild, and long-term deals can be roadblocks in that process. © As I mentioned earlier, everything has a price and a value. Segura could definitely live up to a contract at this price, but he'd have to play at the high levels of his expectations to do so (remember, we could just pay him $550k for a couple of years and then go through arby, so this isn't a free agent deal). With what he has shown, his potential is high, but value just isn't that high right now. Signing him because of what he "could be," and not because of what he "is" adds a lot of extra risk. I'm not saying don't do it, because I would like to see Segura extended. I just wish it were for a lower price. But, with him walking away from the table last year, that was probably never an option. The Brewers will either have to pay up or shut up, and I'm not sure which I'd rather have them do. With no SS anywhere near MLB-ready in the minors, Segura has extra leverage in these dealings.

That's the hang-up now that the market has been set. Do you pay Segura a superstar extension when he may not be a superstar? He's not the level of prospect as Ryan Braun, so it's not a no brainer. I love the idea of locking up pre-arby studs, but I'm on the fence with this one. Segura is the best pre-arby guy we've got, but he's not a "can't miss" guy. I was all over the extension at Teheran levels, and wouldn't be mad at a Simmons-level contract, but there is a big chance it could blow up on the Brewers if he doesn't live up to the high levels of expectation some here have for him. It is just as likely that he stumbles a bit through pre-arby and doesn't hit the jackpot in arby as it is that he plays at an All-Star level. This deal really puts the risk on the Brewers that he will remain healthy and play at an All-Star level without giving them much discount for the chance that he doesn't. But, since he is the best we've got, and since we don't have any other prospects in the system worth locking up, nor do we have any other SS's in the system who will be ready in the next few years, we'd probably be best served by trying to extend him even though the price tag just went up.

The problem here is that due roster limitations a team can really only afford to platoon a single position, the rest of the backups have to be flexible enough to play multiple situations. If you have some interchangeable pieces like in the OF for example you can have multiple platoons, but in this case we are talking about trying to platoon both 1B and 2B. Platooning the entire right side of the IF with players who can't play another position severely limits RR's options any particular day. While I agree with you, I wonder if Melvin considers Reynolds and Francisco to be viable options at 3B. I cringe at the thought of Ramirez going down and the Brewers putting Reynolds at 3B and Francisco at 1B on a daily basis.

That's an assumption made by the author.

The Braves are probably banking on a new stadium bringing in new revenues, so they're extending out their young stars to remain competitive and keep fan interest high. They should be really good this year and next. Then Kimbrel & Freeman's contracts get to eight figures when J. Upton, Uggla and Medlen are off the books, and Simmons and Teheran get to eight figures when B.J. Upton and Kimbrel are off the books. I wonder if Minor is the next in line to get an extension. He's in the first of four arby years, making $3.85MM, so he might be the odd-man out, as his extension would be expensive in the years they already have a lot of expensive contracts.

bcd80, that's why I'm now leery of extending Segura. The market is set with the Simmons extension, and Segura (largely due to one great half in a small sample set) can put together a valid argument as to why he's worth a similar contract to Simmons. I personally would be very scared of signing Segura to this contract, or even one slightly lower. The Brewers may now be the ones walking away from the table. Unfortunately, that would mean waiting until he's more "proven," and that will mean a much more expensive extension a year or two from now. Of course, there's a good chance all of this is moot, because Segura walked away from the table last season, and Melvin apparently stated in a radio interview that they have not met with Segura's team about an extension, despite the rumors. I'm believing more and more that Segura will not be extended... this Simmons deal makes the risk very high for the Brewers, and Segura doesn't seem overly eager to extend.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130909&content_id=60054572&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb I thought some here might like this story. Apparently Jeffress has juvenile epilepsy, and has been misdiagnosed since back in 2008. He's now on medication and has a good shot to make a splash with the Blue Jays.

They have roughly the same service time, so it is a good comp. In his one full season, Simmons was 14th in MVP voting, and won a Gold Glove while Segura was an All Star. Simmons' OPS+ was 87, Segura's was 103. For their (brief) careers, Simmons' OPS+ is 90 and Segura's is 97. The Braves are really setting the market for extensions with this one, Freeman and Teheran. I hoped Teheran was the bogey, but that's out the door now, as Simmons is almost a perfect comp for Segura. I love the thought of locking up young players, but with his fall-off in the second half, I'm wary of signing him to a 7 year / $58MM deal right now, but if we don't, he'd ask for a $100MM extension in the future. I'm torn on this, and will have to trust in the Brewers' judgement as to whether they think he's worth it. Of course, Segura has to be amenable as well, and he walked away from the table last year, so he may not be. Segura aside, I do like what the Braves are doing. They've got a good, young team that is locked up for a long time, and even though they don't seem to have a great farm system right now, they're always good at developing more good, young players on the farm.

...and that's why you shouldn't wait until year two or three of arbitration to sign an extension. You end up basically signing a free agent deal.

Depends on how "iron clad" that contract Wendy Selig-Preib always talked about really is :-) At the end of the day, we Wisconsin fans are very fortunate to have three professional sports teams. That three million people turned the gates at Miller Park in 2008, 2009 and 2011, and 2.5MM attended last year after some poor baseball in 2012 and 2013 is testament to the fact that Wisconsin has some really good sports fans. As much as I've disagreed with some of the Brewers' moves, I do understand that they need to keep attendance up. If that falls too much, we really might face some lean years as Brewer fans.

Depends on the situation. The Brewers are a limited partnership, so if the expenses outweigh the revenues, it's on the owners to come up with the money. Asking the owners to dip into their own pockets is tough. Much of a "rich business owner's" net worth is not liquid, so it's not like they just keep millions sitting in the bank. I don't believe Attanasio is a billionaire, and probably half his net worth is his equity in the Brewers, and a large part is his stake in other private business interests (TCW), which he probably doesn't want to sell. He probably doesn't want to sell his house to pay for a first baseman, so it's not that easy to just come up with millions of dollars for a player. Some owners can and will do it (Tigers), but it's not that common, and certainly not something anyone wants to do on a regular basis. The most likely option would be to borrow money against the Brewers, which I'm sure is the most common financing option by owners in the red. You are correct that this isn't the end of the world if it happens once, but it does add to the team's financing costs, so it could limit future payrolls. Any business needs to turn a profit over time, or it will go under, and banks aren't going to just keep dishing out loans to a company losing money. As to the value of the franchise skyrocketing, that wouldn't happen if the team was constantly losing money. Who would want to buy into a business venture that was going to cost them millions of their own dollars every year? This is the main reason the MLB scrutinizes potential buyers before they allow the sale of a team. They don't want some yahoo to come in there and bankrupt his team, likely causing the other owners /teams to come in and bail him out lest the sale of the team in bankruptcy court lower the value of all the other franchises. That and they don't want Mark Cuban to be an owner :-)

Good players already in arby are the ones signing $100MM deals like Freeman, and apparently Homer Bailey. The difference in cost between signing a good player in his pre-arby years vs his arby years has become very significant. That cost is the cost of transferring the risk. Now the team has the risk of whether or not the player will still be considered "good" a few years down the road. I agree with what it would cost to extend him now: 6 years / $28-30MM Julio Teheran with 1 year: 3 years / $32.4MM Freddie Freeman with 3 years: 8 years / $135MM Guaranteeing a pre-arby player that he will get paid a lot of money over the next six years bears some risk for a team, but can save them a lot. Some would say there's more risk in the Teheran deal, because he's less proven. I'd argue that smaller market teams can afford the downside risk in the Teheran deal moreso than they can afford the downside risk in the Freeman deal, so smaller market teams need to take "unproven" risk over the extra money involved to pay for "proven." They obviously can't offer these deals to everyone, only those who they really think will be good players. It's just too bad that the Brewers have such a horrid farm, so they don't have more guys in this category. I'd much rather have a team of talented young players signed to 6 year / $30-40MM deals than a team with a few veteran free agents signed at $10-20MM/year and a bunch of also-rans filling out the roster.

Segura could probably throw out a .670 OPS and still be worth 40 million over the life of that contract. This "stat" bugs me. It's based on value "per win" of a free agent, which is widely skewed by several teams with endless pockets and several top players making far more than anyone else even if they don't "provide many more wins." It does not take into account how much higher free agent deals are because teams can save money on pre-arby and arby players, and it is based on WAR, which is a good "ice breaker" stat, but has flaws, most notably the inability to accurately measure defense (which is better than it was, but still very inexact). WAR is also a "counting" stat, so I don't believe the "per win" stat takes injuries into consideration, so someone who only plays a partial season won't accumulate much WAR, but still gets paid the full contract. In other words, I don't put much value into the sites that show how much a player is "worth," especially when used to show what a "steal" a team gets on an extension. Segura would be an extension, not a free agent deal, so the risk transferred from the player to the team has to be taken into account, as well as the lower cost arby/pre-arby deals. Transferring risk is huge, so paying a free agent deal to a pre-arby player is a pretty bad idea. If they sign him now, the deal should not average $11MM / year unless it's something like a 10-15 year deal, which of course would be crazy. You're probably looking more like 6 years/$30MM, which could look like a "steal," or could be looked at as a horrendous deal, depending on how Segura's future plays out. Segura could tear up his ankle the day after he signs the deal and lose his ability to play SS, or he could gain 50 pounds once he knows he'll be paid. Even if he stays healthy, lots of players get moved off of SS as they age, so there's no guarantee he'll stay there for the duration of an extension (although he's young enough that he should). The Brewers have to be willing to assume the risk that Segura could not live up to the deal, and Segura has to decide whether he's willing to accept less pay in order to assure himself and his family that they will make a lot of guaranteed money. More and more players have seen the value of signing early extensions, but with the new, monster deals out there, we'll have to see if that trend continues.

I don't think I can recall seeing a player who was a top prospect and had such a good year as Segura did, become so terrible that he wasn't worth 11 million from ages 23 to 28. Are you saying 5 years / $11MM like Lucroy's deal, or $11MM per year? Lucroy's deal would be good if he was never better than an average catcher, so I would sign almost any 23-year-old starter to that deal. However, the Brewers need to be careful paying players $11MM/year, as their budget can only handle a handful of them at one time. As I mentioned earlier, I'd offer Segura a deal similar to Teheran's deal, which ends up around $11MM for the final year. I wouldn't offer him a deal that averaged $11MM per season. FWIW, I just heard DM on WTMJ and he mentioned that he hasn't even talked about this with Segura's agent. He said that he would potentially see if it's something that they may be interested in at some point. Although Melvin is good at "GM speak," meaning the opposite of what he says is often true, I'm not surprised to hear this. If Segura turned down the Brewers last season, the only way they'd be in discussions now is if either: (A) The Brewers substantially raised their offer. Since the Brewers initial offer was given when Segura was on fire in the first half of last year, I can't imagine his second half caused the Brewers to up their offer. or (B) Segura has substantially reduced his demand. If this is the case, then sign him to a Teheran-type deal. But again, unless his confidence was so rattled by his second half that he no longer thinks he's worth a big deal, why would he suddenly change his mind? I hope the latter is the case, but until we see something concrete, I'll assume that he is going to go year-to-year until free agency. While I'd rather see the Brewers lock up their young stars, I support any player that wants to do this - he's taking on risk to maximize his pay - but I think the Brewers' strategy with players like this is to have an exit strategy. Make sure you have a player in your system that will replace him, go year-to-year until he hits year one or two of arby and then start shopping him for trade.

Everything has a price and a value. I don't like it when people have a "whatever it takes" approach, because that assumes the price will be substantially higher than the value, which is never a good option. Segura's value is uncertain at this point. No one doubts the potential, but no one knows for sure how he will progress. Right now, Segura bears a lot of "risk." He's going to make around $550k this year, and if something happens so that he doesn't live up to his potential, when his baseball career is over he'll have to look for a "real job." When offering a guaranteed contract, the team transfers that risk from the player to the team. The player now knows that no matter what, he's going to get paid a lot of money. That's a big leap of faith for the team, and a small-market team like the Brewers cannot take a "whatever it takes" attitude. They need to assign some type of value to the player, and only sign him if he agrees to their terms. Otherwise, go year-to-year and probably trade him prior to him walking as a free agent. Emotion has to be left out. I brought up the Teheran deal because they're pretty good comps, and the deal was just signed. Since Segura has the "tools" and has shown the ability to be a good MLB player, I would like to see them extend him, but only if they can do a deal similar to (and probably a little less than) Teheran's.

How we deal with Gennett vs LHP should be less of a concern than how to maximize value from Weeks (even if max value is not much). The Gennett "problem" is easy... theutility guy can get some starts, and Gennett getting a a few PAs vs LHP isn't that big an issue. Purely from that standpoint, do we get more "value" by cutting Weeks and having someone else on the team, or by letting him be a RH batter off the bench / platoon partner at 2B? If we had a great alternative, I think we'd cut him. However, the other options are players like Gindl and Green, so there is no one forcing Weeks off the 25-man. If Melvin can find someone to trade for Weeks and take some/all of the salary off his hands, I'm sure he would. If not, we're probably just better off letting him be a RH bat off the bench, and RH part of the platoon. Hopefully, he'll do well enough in that role that someone who needs a 2B will trade for him a few months into the season. If he continues to stink, then we can cut him and eat his salary a month into the season just as easily as we could cut him now, but by that point we may have a better idea for how best to use his spot on the roster. I hate having two 2B-only guys, and I have no illusions that we will get anything of value from Weeks, but we still need to try to maximize any value that's there.

I agree that it's pretty unlikely that they give him away for "nothing." I only added that because the previous poster mentioned that they might just want someone to take his contract. In my opinion, that would only happen if he really started complaining about the situation and no one else wanted to take on the contract. Pretty unlikely scenario, as with the current deals out there, $21MM a year for a 29-year-old MVP talent isn't that bad a deal. As to whether others could outbid the Brewers, I think they could be a great trading partner if they could afford Kemp's salary and had a backup option for 3B. The Dodgers aren't the type team that worries about piling up the best group of prospects, so the Brewers' lack of a farm isn't really an issue. The Dodgers are looking at winning today and they only look at prospects as trading chips. Their biggest need is a MLB 3B, and if healthy Ramirez would be a big upgrade to their team right now. Plus, they'd have no problem exercising his option, so they'd get two seasons out of him. Assuming both Ramirez and Kemp are healthy, that could be a good deal... if only we had anyone to fill the 3B hole and had the funds to pay Kemp and Braun $40MM a season and still put 23 other players around them. Although this is highly unlikely, would you rather have Kemp, Gomez and Braun in the OF with Reynolds at 3B and Overbay or Francisco at 1B, or would you rather just go with what we've got? I honestly don't know if the upgrade from adding Kemp (a big upgrade over Davis) makes up for the downgrade in the infield. Reynolds is a butcher at 3B and Overbay or Francisco would have to play every day. This would almost mandate yet another move, making it even more unlikely. It also shows how much our season depends on Ramirez being healthy and productive, which is far from a given.