monty57

There’s some validity to this. Turang is a good prospect, and I look forward to his career with the Brewers. However, the Brewers just picked up Wong’s option rather than handing the job to Turang. I don’t think Turang has to be on the MLB roster. I’d be fine if he continues to develop in AAA until someone gets hurt, at which time he can start for a couple weeks and then head back down. His real opportunity will be when Adames is gone and he can be the everyday SS. He’s much more valuable there than he is anywhere else.

I believe that the team only receives a draft pick for top 3 ROY if the player is on the opening day roster.

Yeah, Brosseau definitely isn't on the roster for his defense. I may like him more than I should just because the team has been so inept against LHP that having someone who hits better than average against them is nice. I think they'll hold onto him, but his roster spot is far from guaranteed. Bad defense cost the team at least some games this year, and therefore could be cited as one reason they weren't in the playoffs. Having a roster full of high-strikeout / low OBP guys could be another thing the front office will try to fix. This is probably one of the reasons the Brewers decided to keep Wong around... they like his approach at the plate and hope his defense will be better this season. Whenever they all make their appearances, Mitchell, Frelick, and Turang should all help cure the aforementioned problems. All are good defensively and have good "bat to ball" skills. At some point, they should all be mainstays in our everyday lineup, and I think the team will be much more fun to watch because of it.

Thank you for the clarification. If the only "assured" playing time he'd see would be as the short-side of the platoon at 2B, then I'd prefer just to use Brosseau, who has a 127 career wRC+ vs LHP (119 wRC+ vs LHP in '22). Counsell doesn't like putting LH batters against LHP, regardless of splits (note the Tellez/Hiura mess from '22), so I think Brosseau will be the guy he'll use in this situation (actually, probably Urias at 2B with Brosseau at third). That would leave roughly 10-20 starts at SS and a few more than that at 3B, so maybe 50-60 starts for him. I agree with your final sentence, and don't think that this role would make good use of his high contact/OBP/speed combo. I think that if he's on the roster, it will be as the strong-side of a 3B platoon, which will leave Urias as the odd man out. Turang is the better defender, with better contact skills, but Urias would probably post a higher wRC+ next year due to a little more power. So, we'd be sacrificing some power for higher OBP and defense. Since the net overall gain would probably be negligible, if we don't acquire a real third baseman I'd probably just stick with Urias as the 3B, find a cheap veteran SS to take those 10-20 starts for Adames and let Brosseau back up Urias when he needs a day off, thereby retaining an extra year's service time for Turang to be our starting SS for six seasons after Adames is gone. I truly appreciate your opinion, and you could be correct, but I think we're kind of going round-and-round at this point. We both like Turang, just have a minor disagreement on how best to bring him into the fold. Exercising Wong's option took significant PT away from someone, and that is probably either Urias or Turang, and it may have went so far as to keep Turang in AAA for another season (or at least until someone gets hurt).

As I mentioned, "the Peterson role" as the season went on was basically the strong side of a platoon (probably 4/5 of the starts) at 3B, and coming off the bench to pinch-hit on the days he wasn't starting. In other words, Turang would basically be the starting 3B with Urias being the weak-side platoon at 2B and Brosseau being the weak-side of the platoon at 3B. Turang has played 8 games (66.1 innings) at 3B in his minor league career. Kind of shoving a square peg into a round hole, but I'm sure that if we want to force him onto the roster he could pick up the position even though he'd be much more valuable as a SS, where he's played 2,816.1 minor league innings. As you mentioned, Turang doesn't really have split differentials, so he isn't someone who should be platooned, but that's the "Peterson role," as Jace was used as a platoon player (only 35 PAs vs LHP in '22). With that in mind, when you keep saying that Turang should play "the Peterson role," should I assume that you mean he should be the starting 3B, getting sit down against RHP even though he doesn't need to be? Also with that in mind, does that mean that by calling for Turang to play "the Peterson role," that you think Urias should be relegated to weak-side of a 2B platoon, as he was last year until Peterson got hurt? I'm fine with that if that's what the team decides. I'm just not clear where you stand, as Turang and Peterson are different players, and Turang isn't a third baseman. Turang is young, but he's much more talented than Peterson, while Peterson had a lengthy hot streak last year that was a nice help to the Brewers while it lasted. He's 22, so there's no urgent need to force him onto the roster into a role in which he isn't familiar when we could just start Urias/Brosseau at 3B, Adames at SS, Wong/Urias at 2B and Tellez at 1B and probably pick up a journeyman veteran utility guy on a low-money one-year deal as the backup SS. Bring Turang up as a starter when someone gets hurt, and plug him in as the '24 starter at SS after Adames is traded. Or, we could just acquire a real 3B in free agency or trade and stop trying to find ways to figure out how to divvy up playing time amongst a group of guys who should be second basemen (Wong, Urias, Brosseau) or SS (Adames, Turang).

A big question is what the Brewers are going to do with Urias. He's a bad defender on the left side of the infield (SS/3B) and he was pretty much put on the small side of the platoon until Peterson got hurt and his production fell off a cliff and Urias showed some life at the end of the year. By exercising Wong's option, he looks to be at least the strong-side of a platoon at 2B, while Adames is the only "lock" for a full-time starting gig in the Brewers' infield. I think it could make sense to move him to 3B, but I highly doubt it happens, and he will be the everyday SS. Urias could be the weak-side platoon at 2B, he could be the everyday 3B, he could be the utility guy (plays 2B, 3B, SS), or he could be traded. Brosseau is a good guy to have around to face LHP as either the 2B or 3B. The team as a whole is horrible against LHP, so Brosseau is really important for this team. How they handle Turang really depends on what they do with the other guys, and whether they decide to acquire a real third baseman. I like Turang, but I like him more as a SS than I do as a 3B, which would be what "the Jace Peterson role" really was last year. If Urias hadn't laid an egg, while Peterson was having the best few months of his career, he would probably have seen the 200-300 PAs that are normal for a utility guy. As it turned out, he became the strong-side of a platoon at 3B (essentially he became the starter until he got hurt, and Urias was the bench guy). Exercising Wong's option really limits Turang's potential role for the '23 Brewers unless they're going to go with a strict platoon at 3B with him and Brosseau with Wong and Urias platooning at 2B. With the current cast, that's a distinct possibility, or they'll just have Turang start the season in AAA until someone gets hurt and he can be an everyday player for a week or two to see how he does. But all of this comes with a big asterisk, as the offseason is just started and it's pretty likely that the Brewers are going to make a lot of moves and all of today's speculation will be moot. I guess my "ideal" scenario would have them acquiring a real third baseman and going with him at 3B, Adames at SS, Wong/Brosseau (or Urias) at 2B, Tellez at 1B with Turang waiting in the wings in AAA. Turang "gets his feet wet" when someone lands on the IR, and becomes our starting SS in '24 after Adame gets traded.

He had a 108 wRC+ with a .360 OBP (.381 in 2021) while playing "defense first" positions. My earlier "he's earned a position" comment doesn't mean the Brewers should rush to trade Adames to make room for Turang. I'm not even saying that he needs to be up to start the season. Rather, I'm saying that he's a good baseball player who should be a starter when he arrives. He's not someone who should sit the bench with sporadic playing time. Do that to guys like Reyes, not guys who look to be key pieces of the team for the next six years.

I don't know. Some players hit the ground running, and some do not. But there's also no certainty that guys with some experience will do well, hence the "sophomore slump" and free agent signings that don't pan out. It's entirely possible that sporadic playing time while getting bounced from position to position could set him back. That's why I included the final paragraph: "No one knows for sure if he'd develop better as a MLB utility guy or as an everyday guy at AAA, but I hate putting players in a role they're not accustomed to, and I hate using up a year of service time for a quality prospect in a bench role." He is the top infield prospect the Brewers have, so "just hand him a starting spot" isn't really accurate. He's proven himself in the minors, and he's earned a promotion. If they don't have an open starting spot, then I would prefer they keep him down until they do. That keeps him playing everyday, which would seem to be the best way for him to develop, and it would probably give the Brewers an extra year's service time rather than using up a year as a part-time player. Burnes is a pitcher, so it may not be apples to apples, but I'd like to have the 2018-19 years of service time back. We got 77 innings of -0.2 WAR in two years of using him as a reliver and bouncing him around, when I'd prefer to have two years of him pitching like he is now. The question: "Is he only this good because we bounced him around in '18 and '19, or would he still be this good and we just wasted two very valuable years of service time?" Like I said earlier, the Brewers' m.o. would be to bring Turang up as a utility guy next year. It's just probably not what I would do.

It will be interesting to see what they do with Turang. He's a natural SS, so he's heir apparent when Adames is gone, which will probably be after the '23 season or at next year's trade deadline if they're out of it. With that in mind, the team should only be concerned with what's best for his development, and how they can maximize his value to the team. Therefore, if he doesn't get a starting MLB job, I'd probably send Turang to AAA so he gets everyday playing time, but I think the team's m.o. will lead to them using him as a utility guy. No one knows for sure if he'd develop better as a MLB utility guy or as an everyday guy at AAA, but I hate putting players in a role they're not accustomed to, and I hate using up a year of service time for a quality prospect in a bench role.

He played 2B for the Rays, accumulating 404 innings from 2019-2021. The Brewers used him at 3B, with Urias moving over to second against lefties, and I'm fine with that as well. Both of them appear to be better at 2B then 3B. At 2B over those 404 innings, he has a -3.2 UZR/150, 2 OAA, 1 RAA. In 649.1 innings at 3B, he's got a -5.0 UZR/150, -5 OAA, -4 RAA. All of these are according to Fangraphs.

I thought the Brewers might try to save some money by letting Wong go, but he is worth the $10M contract. However, his 135 wRC+ vs RHP and 37 wRC+ vs LHP in 2022 pretty much mandates a platoon. Pairing him with Brosseau (career 127 wRC+ vs LHP, 84 wRC+ vs RHP) seems like a pretty solid 2B combo... at least on the offensive side. There's way too much offseason left to make and definitive statements on how our team will look on opening day '23. This adds a bit of clarity, but there's a lot left to do. Right now, it's Tellez at 1B, Wong/Brosseau at 2B, Adames at SS and Urias at 3B, and I'd guess Yelich and Renfroe will get a lot of the DH PAs with Frelick and Mitchell playing in the field on most days. My bet is that there will be a lot of moves to shake that up.

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.

I would offer arby to Houser, as I think that he is better than he looked this year, but I think that there is too much risk to offer him a 4-5 year deal. If he gets it together, that would be a good deal, but if he doesn't, they've just thrown away $20M. That may not seem like a lot in "baseball money," but $20,000,000 is $20,000,000. That's still a lot of cash.

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 wish they'd have sent Burnes down to AAA in 2019 after his rough start. Instead, they bounced him to the bullpen and he wasted a year's service time as a horrible relief pitcher before the finally had to send him to AAA to end the season, with people calling for him to be DFA'd. I still think it's a minor miracle that he got his head straightened out as quickly as he did, but at the very least, we should have another year's service time if they had just sent him to AAA right away. The "he's too valuable to the MLB team to keep in AAA, so let's put him in the bullpen" cost us a year of Burnes, and I'll still argue that Hader could've been a good starting pitcher if they'd have given him a shot. If he'd have turned into an ace starter rather than a great closer, we would've gotten a lot more than we did for him in trade.

Depends on how valuable that player is. Soto netted a lot of highly regarded prospects, while Hader did not. I think that's because relievers (even really good ones) don't have that much trade value. Once Hader was turned into a reliever, his trade value dropped, even though he was one of, if not the best reliever in baseball. Unfortunately, the archaic arbitration process was still going to pay him a lot of money to pitch one inning every couple of days, so he had to be traded. It can be debated whether he had to be traded when he was, or if that could've waited until the end of the season, but the Brewers weren't in a position to pay him something like $15M in '23. Heck, we may still need to cut some salary even with Hader gone and the likely chance that Wong's option won't be exercised. Don't confuse Hader's return with what we could get if we put Burnes or Woodruff on the market. They're apples and oranges.