monty57

but the signing shows that the price of starting pitching is going up if this is any indication. This is the key. All it takes is one team to "set the bar high" for mid-tier starters and then everyone else can use that as a baseline. Every agent can now use this to say "Guthrie got 3/$25, and my guy's better than Guthrie." If Melvin has a target in mind, he needs to strike quickly before the "feeding frenzy" hits. Once that hits, I'd prefer Melvin sit on the sidelines and see what's left that he can get cheap when the sharks are gone.

Put this in a relative context. If it would cost $12MM/year to extend Gomez: 1) Is he worth $11.5MM more per year than Schafer? 2) Is he worth $8-10MM more per year than Aoki, who could probably be extended to play CF? 3) To make this close to on topic, if Hamilton "only" costs $5-8MM more per season, does it make sense to extend Gomez rather than signing Hamilton? 4) If the budget makes it one or the other, does it make more sense to extend some of our young guys (pitchers, Segura, Schafer, Maldonado) to "Lucroy-type" deals rather than blowing a big chunk of cash on Gomez? It seems to me that we have too many better options for it to make sense to extend Gomez.

I would be stoked if the brewers went for him, but the debate is would you trade segura for olt. The crew NEEDS segura more then olt. True, and Texas doesn't need a SS other than to potentially flip him to AZ. A question this thread should ask "Is Segura equal in value to Andrelton Simmons," as that is the player that Arizona apparently wanted in an Upton trade. I like Segura, but he's probably a step below Simmons, both offensively and defensively. I would bet, if Olt had been available to the Brewers, Greinke would have been traded to Texas at the time. That probably hinged on the rumored Ramirez-to-the-Dodgers trade happening. If the Angels deal was on the table, and Melvin didn't think he could move Ramirez, I doubt he would've traded for a near-MLB-ready 3B over an MLB-ready SS. As TheCrew07 mentioned, had Texas thrown in a SP, that could've changed things, but if they weren't willing to trade Olt-for-Greinke, they certainly wouldn't trade Olt+SP for Greinke.

While Melvin wants to add a veteran starter this offseason, I highly doubt they will pick up two veteran starters. Dempster is probably the better pitcher, but assuming they could get Nolasco in a "salary dump" trade without giving up much talent, I'd much rather see them do that than go multi-year with Dempster.

ESPN is a media outlet and therefore is all about ratings. Fired up fan bases are good for ratings. Stoking the fire by saying how badly they got screwed serves their purpose much more than quietly saying "they got good talent back, so let's move on to the next story." They are going to drag out any "big" baseball story they can get at this time of year for as long as they can, and they're going to play out whichever angle they think will draw the highest ratings. Of course, with the dawn of the MLB Network and NFL Network, I probably haven't watched more than a couple of hours of ESPN all year, so I'm no expert on what it is that they are saying.

why would any free agent sign with the marlins knowing that you will be traded within 2 years since he does it with every big name player Money. Miami screwed up by not writing something into the contract about keeping a competitive team salary wise. "Competitive team salary wise" does not mean "competitive team in wins and losses." That would be a horrible deal to sign and say something along the lines of "We'll always pay more than x% of the league," as that would seriously hamstring your GM. The ownership group is criminal but they did it within the letter of the law If they acted within the law, then they are not criminal. In regards to the Red Sox vs Marlins, in the past 93 years, the Marlins and Red Sox have the same number of World Series pennants. However, the Marlins have only been a franchise for 19 of those seasons. I understand that some people won't like how the Marlins operate, but what are the ultimate goals of any franchise? If they are winning champioships and making money, then the Marlins seem to have found something that works for them. I also understand that some people don't like that the Marlins make money through payouts from other teams, but why is it somehow acceptable to use this money to pay a bunch of bums big money just to make a show of competing (like Selig did in the 90's) while it's unacceptable to stockpile some money while paying young, talented guys league-minimum, and then increasing the payroll when you have a legitamate shot at winning it all? The contract which allows teams like the Marlins to recieve "welfare" is the same contract which allows teams to pay guys well below market value for the first six seasons of their career. Both are done to help small market teams compete, so I don't want anyone screwing with the contract, because that could kill the Brewers.

Reilly summed things up pretty well. I'd only go multi-year for an ace. Otherwise, I'd look for a solid middle-of-the-rotation guy for one year. Nolasco fits that bill, and could be a good pickup to "bridge the gap" this year until we can be more certain that we can fill our rotation from the farm. If we could get him for a good price, I could get behind that signing. He might fall into the category where we could get him almost for nothing if we pick up all the salary, or we could offer a better prospect and not have to pay the whole salary. This is odd for me, but I'm not worried about adding his salary this season, as on a one-year deal it shouldn't hurt us.

As I think about it, signing a free agent to a bad contract, paying the first (leat expensive) season and then trading him for Top 10 prospects could be genius. If I knew we could trade Greinke away after next season and get some top young players for him, I'd join the "break the bank to sign him" crowd. If these prospects turn out to be really good players, they could have the foundation for a really good team. They'll have nothing in payroll, so they'll have tons of money, meaning they can throw big money to fill gaps (and not spend just to spend as they did last year), and field a World Series team. Then they blow the team back up to bring back boatloads of new prospects, like they have after their other two championship seasons, and probably be a playoff team again 3-4 years later. That may not lead to a lot of die-hard fans, but you can make money and put "World Champions" banners in the rafters. From a business angle, it makes some sense. Certainly moreso than the "let's do enough to be decent" strategy some floundering franchises seem to employ.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Everyone saying it's a terrible franchise is following a franchise that would kill for the Marlins' post-season success.

What if it is June, we are in it and both Segura and Bianchi are injured or are just not producing. Are you going to stay status quo or find a player available and trade for them. I hate leading statements like this. Everything has a price, and everything has a value. If, in your scenario, someone is giving a player away in a salary dump (a la K-Rod in 2011), then of course you make the deal if you can handle the contract. If the best SS on the market is horrible and it would cost us Peralta, then no chance I make the deal. Most likely in that case, if teams are trying to bend you over in a trade, you will be able to find a Cody Ransom-type player floating around that won't cost you your team's future. Not all trades are for short term players and not all trades are for negligible production increases. TC07 has almost 7,000 posts, many of which have explained his team-building methodology. If you've read any of them, I'm sure you realize that he understands that not all trades are for short-term players. However, this thread is contemplating trading several of our better prospects for one year of R.A. Dickey, and most mid-season trades (which you seemed to imply in the line he quoted) are for three-month rentals. Both of those moves certainly imply trading for a "short-term player."

I don't think finding a RH corner OF is a priority at all. This team has right handed thunder up and down the lineup. I'm thinking more of a RH bat off the bench with some pop. That player is usually a backup corner OF/1B. Right now, our primary RH bat off the bench is either Bianchi or we have to use our backup catcher everyday as a pinch hitter. Melvin just seems to have a penchant for fielding a RH-heavy starting lineup and a LH-heavy bench.

Agree. I'm glad when a big-market team makes a big-money mistake. I hate when they find a way to get someone else to take them off the hook, and really don't want that to be the Brewers.

I'm not completely opposed to a 2 year/$6MM deal for a reliever. However, I hope the Brewers know their farm system pretty well, and know which of their prospects are likely to end up in the MLB bullpen. We have a lot of near-MLB-ready arms in the minors, so I would guess that many of them will not make the cut for the MLB rotation. If we will have an excess of bullpen arms by 2014, I don't see a need to sign someone to a two-year deal. If the front office thinks our prospects will not be ready for the MLB 'pen in 2014, and sign a guy with decent stuff who consistantly throws strikes to a two-year deal then I won't be too upset. The problem is that most relievers are pretty inconsistent, and Melvin seems to like live-armed guys with control issues, so we could easily end up with a lightning-armed headcase who we're stuck with while better pitchers are blocked in AAA. Since I think we'll have plenty of young MLB-ready bullpen arms by 2014, I'd put my vote against signing a guy to a multi-year deal this offseason, even if that means paying a little more AAV for a one-year deal (for example, one year/$3.5MM vs two years/$6MM).

Think marginal: In a year, or two, or three, would the money spent to hold onto Hart be better spent upgrading elsewhere? How much better will Hart be than his alternative (Morris/Gamel) vs how much better a different $12-15MM player would be than our worst player at another position. ...or... Would the return from Hart in trade upgrade another position (including cost and "team control") more than we would lose by moving from Hart to Gamel/Morris at 1B? Any signing is about much more than "is he worth it." It's about marginal differences and other available opportunities.

You gotta remember we have Lucroy, Maldonado, Segura, Bianchi, Gamel, Green, Schafer, Fiers, Rogers, Peralta, Kintzler, Henderson, Thornburg and Narveson all making under a mill and a couple others like Aoki and Estrada who won't be making much more than that in the near future. If we resign Hart like it sounds like we plan on doing then all you have to do is replace Gomez in 2014 and guys like Schafer, Gamel or Morris can do that for the ML minimum. The bullpen and rotation will continue to be filled with cheap pre arb talent which will alleviate your payroll concerns going forward. Care to elaborate more on that statement I bolded though? What particular arms do you see emerging that much by then? I'm not talking cheap #4/5's who can give you a 4.50 ERA. I'm talking #3's or higher where you can expect around 200 innings of 4.00 ERA or under from them? In 2014, we will have Lucroy at $2MM, Gamel (Year 2 arby)/Morris (pre-arby), Weeks at $11MM, Segura (pre-arby), Ramirez at $16MM, Braun at $10MM, Schafer (pre-arby) and no RF. Pitching we'll have Yo at $11.25MM, Estrada (Year 2 arby), Rogers (Year 1 arby) and about ten pre-arby guys. I'm cautiously optimistic about the number of pre-arby guys we'll have, as that will keep salary low. I'm far more at ease with the situation now than I was last offseason, thinking we were going to spend $20MM/year on Greinke and not knowing how guys like Estrada, Rogers and Fiers would pan out. However, none of our position prospects are highly touted, and relying on so many young, unheralded position players bears risk. Looking at the list above, 1B, RF, SS and CF are all filled by young guys who have yet to prove anything with their bat at the MLB level, Ramirez will be 36, and Weeks is coming off a season in which many wanted him kicked out of town. We're looking two years out, so anything can happen. Having the ability (re: money) to fill any holes that pop up is a good thing. To the point of starting pitching, TheCrew07 posted a good run-down of the prospects on the previous page (pg 12) of this thread. Peralta, Rogers, Thornburg, Jungmann, Nelson, Hellweg and Pena all have the potential to be better than middle-of-the-rotation starters, and all should be MLB-ready before or around 2014. Additionally, we will still have Gallardo, Estrada (who has pitched well as a starter)and Fiers, and Burgos, Stinson, Scarpetta, Gagnon, Bucci and Bradley should be MLB-ready. Some of these guys will flame-out, some will end up in the 'pen, but we should have an excess of pitchers vying for the MLB rotation. We may even be in a position that we have to trade away some MLB starting pitching. I'm not against signing Dempster to a two-year deal, and I like that a lot more than some other options out there, but there is the chance he pitches in 2014 in a similar fashion to the 2012 version of Randy Wolf. I just think it's worth noting that we may have some needs on the position side in 2014 that are far more pressing than having another starting pitcher. The perceived need for a starting pitcher for 2013 is more for "veteran presence" and innings limits than it is about lack of SP talent on the roster. I agree with the innings limits part of that, which is why I think getting someone on a one-year deal, if possible, is probably the best idea, as we won't have the innings limit concerns in 2014 and beyond, and we'll have plenty of MLB tested SP.

Haren is a possibility. The Angels paid him $3.5MM not to pitch there, and couldn't get anyone else to trade for him. He could very well be had for a one-year, incentive-laden deal so he could build his value up. His bad back seems to be the reason for his down first half, and his numbers in the second half were similar to his excellent 2010 and 2011 seasons. Marcum is another, but his ship seems to have sailed from Milwaukee. I don't look at the biggest need to be someone who is better than our young guys, as we have talented young guys. Rather, I think the need is for someone who can relieve innings from the young guys' arms. We would probably be okay going into the season with the guys we have, but around August, right in the middle of (hopefully) a pennant race, we'd have to shelve guys as they reached their innings limit. If we could get a #3/4 starter who could pitch every five days, we could put Rogers at #5, skipping him when the schedule allows, and put Peralta in AAA on an innings/pitch count to keep both of their innings down. If we could find a Haren-type who ends up pitching like a #1/2, then that's great, but I'd be happy with someone who posts a 4.00-ish ERA over 200 IP. Sure there's risk to doing that, but there's risk to everything. If we have money "in the bank," we could always pick up a salary dump player mid-season if we needed an upgrade. I think we have some bright spots shining in the future, just needing to sneak by the 2014 financial hump when we'll have Ramirez making a boatload of money. With the way things are lining up, I'd rather the risk we take this offseason not tie our hands long-term... let's see how the young guys shake out before signing another big money, multi-year deal.

Reilly laid out pretty well why Melvin will probably make an effort (and will probably be successful) at signing Dempster. TLB showcased the biggest concern. Another concern I'll add comes from a cost perspective. He, Weeks, Yo, Braun and Ramirez would cost around $60MM in 2014, making us very dependant on young guys like Schafer, Gamel/Morris, whoever takes over in RF and the young pitchers to all come through big time. It would be tough to fill any holes when the majority of your salary is going to five guys. If Dempster were to "fall off a cliff" in the second year, then we would be very hard-pressed to field a competitive team. Not so much because he'd be irreplaceable as a pitcher, but because his salary (along with the other committments) may disallow Melvin from finding upgrades/depth in other areas in that one-year pinch before Ramirez's contract is off the books. I like the thought of Dempster on a two-year deal more than the thought of signing Jackson to a three or four-year deal. I still like the idea of getting a vet on a one-year deal, but maybe that's not feasible. In that second year I think we'll have enough SP, and I'd rather have "Dempster's salary" to fill in other holes, like a RF or 1B if the young guys (and Gamel) don't prove effective.

I would rather spend the extra money on Hamilton I'd probably rather use the extra money to pay down debt to expidite the period where Attanasio won't have to budget so much of the revenue towards debt repayment, and instead will permanantly be able to field a team with a higher payroll. In 2013, we may have to trade Hart & Gomez to make room for Hamilton in the budget. There is reason to believe that Hart & Gomez could outperform Hamilton & Gamel. In 2014, we will have Braun, Gallardo, Weeks and Ramirez all making a lot of money. In order to fit Hamilton's $20-25MM into the budget, we'd probably have to give Ramirez or Weeks away to anyone who would take on the salary. Beyond 2014, Hamilton and Braun would make around $40MM, which could be anywhere between 30-50% of our team's payroll. There are ways Melvin could work it to fit Hamilton onto the Brewers... I just don't think it's worth it. I'd rather just save the money this year. Pick up a veteran SP on a one-year deal, add a couple of reliable relivers and we should be good to go.

There would be concern if Melvin had signed him to a guaranteed Major League contract. The way it is, if he earns it, he can be a middle reliever who throws quality pitches for strikes. If we have a few "bullpen burnout" days, he can be sent to AAA to bring up a fresh arm for a while. Roster flexibility has been one of the big hurdles for the Brewers' bullpens for quite a while. Hopefully a pick up like this, along with the young guys coming up from our farm will allow us to have some flexibility this season.

Thanks Briggs. I'm trying to drop emotions/personal feelings and simply apply logic. There's a reason Melvin & Co have spent most of their top draft picks for the past 3-4 years on starting pitchers, and it's probably not so they can sign a veteran to a long-term, big money contract to block people. I've warmed to the idea of adding a veteran because (A) he'll add some certainty, and more importantly (B) there are innings worries on some of the young arms. I'd hate to be in a pennant race and have to shut down 20-60% of our starting rotation in August. One vet on a one-year deal allows us to put one of the "innings limit" guys at #5 where he can occasionally be skipped, and other(s) at AAA where innings can be monitored (there's less backlash if you continually pull a starter after 4-6 innings at AAA then there would be if it were done at the MLB level). Little risk to a one-year signing, but lots of benefits, even if the vet only has a so-so season. Even though it might "feel good," there's lots of risk in signing someone like Jackson to the 3 year/$36MM deal he'll probably get.

I put this in another thread, but I thought it applies well here as a response to the bolded part of your quoted statement: Whoever we'd sign to a 3-year deal had better be pretty darn sure to be better than a middle-of-the-rotation guy for at least the next three years. Edwin Jackson is a fine pitcher, but his career ERA is 4.40 and he's only had two seasons in his career with an ERA under 4.00. He doesn't strike out that many (6.87 career K/9), his K/BB is only 1.95, and his career WHIP is 1.44. Are we absolutely positive that he is going to be one of our best five pitchers in 2014 or 2015? I'd say that the only two who fit in that category are Greinke and Sanchez. Melvin's already said that Greinke's not going to happen, so I'd say that if we can't sign Sanchez (which is pretty unlikely), I wouldn't go multiple years on anyone. We'll have plenty of pitching after that one-year deal is over.

In what other sport can you play just half of the game? Football. What really bothers me is that it's not a universal MLB rule, that makes even less sense to me. That I agree with. I think that with interleague now going on every day, eventually there will be one rule for both leagues, and the Players' Union will not allow the DH to go away. Therefore, I think we'll have the DH in both leagues in the not-too-distant future. I've cheered for the Brewers when they had a DH, and I've cheered for the Brewers without a DH. Since I believe the DH will be universal soon, I've started getting myself used to the idea of having a DH, so I'll vote "yes" for the DH in this election.

My biggest fear this offseason was that we were gonna get desperate for relievers and give out a couple 4 year 20 million dollar commitments early. Good God I hope not. I could see him doing some one-year, $4-5MM contracts, but I sure hope he doesn't go four years on anyone.

No, it's the coaching staff's fault he was used to consistently face LHB's, instead of being put in a place where he was more likely to succeed. That too, but I didn't want my rant to go on too long :-)

Thanks TC07 and nate82. Going into 2013, adding a veteran will allow us to keep a handle on innings for some guys who are probably on innings limits. It also gives us needed depth, as one of Estrada, Rogers, Peralta or Fiers will either be in the bullpen or AAA. Going into 2014, we will have Gallardo, Peralta, Fiers, Estrada, Rogers, Burgos, Hellweg, Nelson, Thornburg, Stinson. That's ten SP who are reasonably likely to be at or near MLB-ready. Going into 2015, add Jungmann, Scarpetta, Gagnon, Pena, Bucci and Bradley to the list above. Therefore, whoever we'd sign to a 3-year deal had better be pretty darn sure to be better than a middle-of-the-rotation guy for at least the next three years. Edwin Jackson is a fine pitcher, but his career ERA is 4.40 and he's only had two seasons in his career with an ERA under 4.00. He doesn't strike out that many (6.87 career K/9), his K/BB is only 1.95, and his career WHIP is 1.44. Are we absolutely positive that he is going to be one of our best five pitchers in 2014 or 2015? I'd say that the only two who fit in that category are Greinke and Sanchez. Melvin's already said that Greinke's not going to happen, so I'd say that if we can't sign Sanchez (which is pretty unlikely), I wouldn't go multiple years on anyone. We'll have plenty of pitching after that one-year deal is over. Going the opposite route of this thread, I'd make sure Estrada remains a starter this season. Since Estrada has been a starter, he's been really good. His numbers as a reliever drag down his overall numbers, but as a starter, he's good. If he puts up another 3.50-4.00 ERA, 1.14-1.20 WHIP, around 9 K/9 and 3-5 K/BB, he will be a really good commodity for us to dangle in trade next offseason as the young guys force their way onto the team. There's little reason this offseason to sign a non-ace to a multi-year deal, when next offseason we will probably be looking at trading away SP to make room for everyone.