monty57

In 2003, Mark Prior and Carlos Zambrano were high-upside young pitchers. Prior had 211.1 IP (from 116.2 the previous year) and Carlos Zambrano had 214 (from 108.1) They also had more experienced arms in Kerry Wood and Matt Clement. Kerry Wood pitched 213.2 in 2002 and 211 in 2003, while Clement had 205 IP in 2002 and 201.3 in 2003 for the Cubs. Wood and Prior both developed arm issues that shortened their careers, Clement had one more decent year in Chicago before failing in Boston, while Zambrano had a pretty solid career through 2012. The Brewers are in a position where it could be easy to push their young high-upside starters, especially if they're in the playoff race. There is a lot more data available these days, so I'm not too worried about them abusing their starters like Dusty did in the early 2000's. It will be interesting to see how they handle their pitching staff, and I expect there will be grumbling from some fans if pitchers like Hall and Ashby are pitching well and they start limiting they in August/September. Hall's high mark is 94.1 IP, but that was back in 2018. His recent high was 76.2 IP in 2022, so he could be limited anywhere from 100-120 IP this year. Assuming 5-6 IP/start, that would be around 20 starts. Ashby pitched 107.1 innings in 2022, but then got hurt and missed all of last year. He'll probably be limited to around 120 or so innings as well. Miley tends to get hurt a lot, and since 2018, his IP year-by-year are: 80.2, 167.1, 14.1, 163.0, 37.0, 120.1. Who knows what to expect there. Rea was at a career high last year, with 124.2, so he should be able to pitch around 150 innings, which should be a full year for him. Peralta of course is expected to be our ace, and we should be able to expect a full season from him. It makes a lot of sense that we have guys like Junis and Ross, who can both make starts or act as a long-reliever, and Gasser and Mis are both waiting in the wings, and could be picking up some of Hall and Ashby's starts later in the year as they get close to their innings limits.

At this point, I'm not expecting anyone else to be traded. That said, all offseason I've thought that an Adames trade could/should happen. That it hasn't happened yet seems to indicate that no one was willing to meet the Brewers' price tag, and they see him as more valuable to the team this year than what they could receive in trade. That doesn't shock me, as I don't think he has a lot of trade value. Williams would surprise me. I think they're trying to win this year, and he can help them do that. If it doesn't work out, he can be traded at the deadline. Relievers always seem to get way overvalued at the deadline so we could get a lot for him then. If they do make a playoff run this year, then he can be dealt next offseason. There's no need to trade him off now unless they are absolutely blown away with a trade offer. Any of the young OF could be traded, but it would have to be a perfect matchup where another team needs an OF and has a blocked prospect of equal value to the OF we're trading at a position of need for the Brewers. The Brewers have young talent everywhere, and have added pitching to the point I'm wondering how they're going to find a spot for everyone. I think it'd be hard to find a good matchup unless they trade for someone in the low minors and I don't think that's going to happen. I guess a slugging 1B/DH could work if there's a team willing to give one up for one of our OF. It's a good thing that they're stocked with young talent. If that means they keep players like Wiemer and Turang in AAA for a good part of the season, then that's what happens. It's not always about a player "needing more seasoning" or "having nothing left to prove." It's about what's best for the team, and the Brewers should have some nice injury insurance sitting at AAA this year. Who knows, maybe none of the guys will extend and they'll have Wiemer for another season after Mitchell is gone because he spends this year in AAA. Not the best scenario for Wiemer, but it would be good for the Brewers.

Just a guess, but I think the Brewers have already offered an extension to Contreras and he's decided to go year-to-year. He's in his final pre-arby year, and once players hit arby, their extensions don't give the team nearly as much of a discount. The Brewers like to do the Ashby/Peralta type extensions as opposed to extending players when they're already in their arby years. I think they'll keep Quero in AAA all year, which is why they signed several veteran backups to Contreras. Next year, Quero will back up Contreras, and if he shows himself capable, they'll trade Contreras after '25, when he still has two years' service time and a lot of trade value. That makes Quero a prime candidate for an extension, but not quite yet. If my scenario is correct, then he'd probably get offered an extension around the time they're looking to trade Contreras. I wouldn't be opposed to a Uribe extension, but I wouldn't go overboard to sign one. First, he shouldn't get more than the Ashby extension, just due to the fact that he's a reliever, and relievers shouldn't get more than starters. Second, relievers are notoriously fickle. Very few of them are consistently good, largely due to the limited number of innings they pitch in a year, making a "slump" more detrimental to their end-of-year numbers. They can't base his contract on him becoming the next "best reliever in baseball." If they extend him, they'd better get a really nice discount. It may not sound like it so far, but I am actually a big proponent of extending young players. I would be happy to hear that any of our young guys (Mitchell, Frelick, Black, Gasser, Wiemer, Ortiz, Hall, etc) signed an extension. I would expect that the deal signed with any of them would be akin to the Ashby/Peralta deals and not the Chourio deal. Chourio is just another caliber of player, and most guys won't get that deal. If I had to guess, Wiemer is probably headed to AAA to start the season, and after a couple of weeks the Brewers will get another year's service time out of him. If Adames is going to be on the opening day Brewer roster, than the same thing could happen to Turang. I can't see either of them getting extended prior to getting shipped to AAA. Gasser and Mis will probably start in AAA as well, so an extension may be premature for either of them. The rest of the rookie/2nd year guys are all prime candidates for extensions. Hopefully some of them will sign.

Not sure if it fits here, but the Yankees picked up Jahmai Jones, who we just dfa'd.

Isn't that what Dusty did to the young Cubs' pitching staff that ruined the careers of a promising young rotation? I don't think he gets over 120-130 innings. The team is going to need to be careful to monitor several of their pitchers' innings. It will be interesting to see how they handle everyone's workload.

Agree. It takes time to evaluate all the pieces. Even then, I try not to look at it as "did we win or lose." Actually, I try not to pay too much attention to how the player(s) we traded away even do. I try to focus on what the guys we get do for the Brewers. This was a big trade, so we got talented, MLB-ready prospects back. I hope they can play up to their potential over the next 5-6 years. If they do, we'll have acquired a couple of All Stars, and if that happens I don't care if Burnes wins multiple Cy Youngs in the future, as I'll be happy with the guys we got. If the guys we got both stink up the joint (which I don't think is likely), then I won't think we "won" anything, even if Burnes takes a nosedive as well. Overall, I'm excited about both Hall and Ortiz. I hope that I'm still excited about them a couple of years from now. Since this is about the rotation, I think Hall has the "stuff" to eventually be a top-of-the-rotation starter. If he can put that stuff to work and give us around 120-130 solid innings as a rookie this year, then I'll be happy.

Maybe it's just my lack of faith in any kind of luck when it comes to Brewers and injuries, but I had just assumed that Ashby would start the year in extended spring training and get brought along slowly, being added to the team sometime mid-season as a long reliever. Having him likely for the opening day rotation is huge for the Brewers. I'd say that Peralta, Miley, Ashby and Hall are going to be in the opening day rotation, with a righty like Ross or Junis filling out the rotation. There are still some questions, but there is a lot of talent in that group. Add in the prospects (Gasser and Mis) sitting in AAA and probably making the move to the majors at some point this year, and we could have something to get excited about. Oh, and we should have phenomenal defense behind these guys, which can't hurt.

I understand why Counsell took a substantially higher pay package to go elsewhere, so I don't hold anything against him. I also don't think managers make that much of a difference at the MLB level, and I think that his former Notre Dame coach who is our new manager will do just as good a job as Counsell for a lot less money, so the Brewers are ahead in this deal. That said, while it is an unrealistic dream, I hope Counsell goes 0-162 in his first season as a Cub manager, but that's just because it's the Cubs. If he went anywhere outside of the division, I wouldn't care what he does going forward.

They added the rule that gives a team a draft pick if they put a rookie on the opening day roster, he accrues a full year's service time, and he wins Rookie of the Year. This could make the Brewers decide to add some of their promising rookies to the opening day roster rather than holding them down for an extra year's service time. Service time manipulation certainly exists, but while it may seem to be a bad thing to do to a person, it is within the rules negotiated in the CBA, and the owners aren't going to give it up for nothing. It's important to the union, but apparently not as important as some other things, and not important enough to give up whatever they'd have to give up in negotiations in order to get it changed.

I use the term for the connotation. It's a term used by the union to make owners/management look like a bunch of evil overlords for doing something that they agreed to in the CBA. It's a practice that is sometimes used by teams to get more service time, but is also justified in many cases. If it were a violation of the CBA as you state, there would be a lot of grievances filed. To my knowledge, Bryant's filing against the Cubs is the only example, and he lost that case even though it was obvious that the Cubs kept him down just to get an extra year's service time. As to it being justified in many cases, Wiemer has the potential to be a very good player, but the Brewers would be fully justified to start him out in the minors due to his offensive performance last year. He was on the MLB roster all year last year, so he has one full year of service time. Therefore, he'd only need to be down for something like 15 days to gain a full year's service time. If the Brewers start him in the minors, and then bring him up after a few weeks to replace another player who is struggling, is there any manipulation? I've never wanted to be in a union because I'd never want to let someone else negotiate my compensation for me. That's not the case in baseball. The players are in a union, and they negotiated a contract that says they have to be on the 26 man roster for 172 days in order to count as a full year, and that the team can move them on and off the active roster as long at they still have options. That was negotiated in and agreed upon by both sides. Who exactly should "stamp it out?" If it can be "stamped out," then can anything else in the contract just get "stamped out?" Wouldn't that make the entire contract worthless?

I don't necessarily agree. Look at someone like Tyrone Taylor. He bounced back and forth for a few years so we got a lot of years' of cheap service out of him. He played for the Brewers for 2019, 20, 21, 22, and 23, and he still only has 3.093 years of service time, won't be arby eligible until 2025, and has team control until 2027. If we didn't have a surplus of OF, he would still be a viable option as a MLB OF for around league minimum. Since we have so many OF, he had trade value largely due to how much cheap control he still has. My point is that below-value service time matters for any viable major league player, even if they're only utility guys or middle relievers. It's not the only factor, but it is certainly a factor.

No, it's $2.5M in 2024, $5M in 2025, $10M buyout in 2026. Total is $17.5M paid out over three years. The only way he gets more is if both sides agree on the mutual $20M in 2026, which would then make it $27.5, but mutual options are rarely exercised. Odds are heavily in favor of the buyout happening.

Some people are thinking too much into this. The Brewers are paying $2.5M for Woodruff to rehab and recover this year. There is a small chance he'll pitch, but he probably won't. They are paying him $15M to pitch in 2025. $5M of that will be paid in 2025 and $10M will be deferred to 2026. There is almost no chance the mutual option is picked up. He will get his $10M buyout and sign a new deal somewhere. The Brewers are expecting one year of production (2025) for $17.5M total, paid over three years.

I guess it could mean that he'd have something like a 47 MPH fastball, or it could mean that he'd have an ERA of 3.42 (2.28 2023 ERA * 1.5). Depends on which way you want to look at it.

Maybe so, but the reason shouldn't be because they're keeping Haase as a third catcher. I like the Sanchez signing if he is the backup catcher who plays every day (as C or DH) vs LHP and occasionally gives Contreras a rest vs RHP. I don't like the signing nearly as much if Sanchez is signed to strictly be the everyday DH, with Haase being the primary backup catcher. Sanchez is projected to have a slightly below average MLB bat (around 92-98 wRC+ per Fangraphs) and almost all of his WAR value since 2020 has been from his defense as a catcher. If we were signing pre-2020 Sanchez, then sure, let him be the everyday DH. If we're getting the guy he's been for the past few seasons, then he should be a backup catcher who primarily hits against lefties. Meanwhile, Haase is a project who should be in AAA to see if he has any value left.

That'd be awesome. I know nothing about the type of injury he has. I assume the Brewers do, and them being willing to sign this deal gives me hope. To me, coming back next year and being his old self would be great. Being able to help out the '24 squad would be even better.

Glad to hear this. I hated how things "ended" with his injury, so I'm glad the Brewers are going to pay him something this year and work with him through his rehab, and hopefully he can be his old self again in '25.

I think this is going to be the case. We have a lot of mid-to-back-of-the-rotation guys with innings concerns. Makes sense that some of them will end up as multi-inning relievers, while others will be starters who won't go deep into the game very often. They have employed this strategy successfully in the past, and I expect they'll try to do so again this year. Have five (or six) starters, two or three guys who can go 2-3 innings every few days, and a lockdown back of the 'pen.

You know prospects better than I ever will. Is there a 40 man guy you would've let go before Andrews, or would you rather not have done the Junis signing and kept them all? It's good that we have a lot of talented guys who deserve 40 man spots, so I'm glad we were able to get a promising 19-year-old to add to the system who won't have 40 man consideration for years for a guy who we had DFA'd and could have got nothing.

The Brewers have a lot of depth, but maybe (as was brought up in the site's article on the potential need to trade a bullpen arm or two) too much depth, meaning we won't have enough spots on the 26 man roster for all of the guys we have. It looks like there will have to be some moves made this spring where some guys who are currently on the 40 man will not be around by the end of spring training. This could be something like an Adames trade, or it could simply be someone who's out of options and isn't going to make the squad. To the topic of this thread, we have a lot of depth at starting pitching. There may be some questions on the quality of that depth, how people will recover from injuries, innings limits, etc., but we have a lot of bodies filling up roster spots. I don't think the Brewers are done making moves, and if they think Gasser is one of the best options for the '24 staff (which would seem to be the case), they will find a 40-man spot for him. If the Clayton Andrews trade is any kind of a bellwether, I'd be happy to trade more "last guys on the 40 man" for more 19-year old's with promising upside.

This article from the Brewers' official site speculates that Sanchez might be signed to be the Brewers' primary DH, and that they could keep Contreras, Sanchez and Haase on the opening day roster. I'd certainly dislike this signing more if that's the case. I like the thought of Sanchez playing every time a LHP is on the mound either as DH or C, but he shouldn't be in all the time when they're facing a RHP. We have a lot of LH bats to put out there against RHP. At $7M, he will get more PAs than the traditional back-up catcher, but I hope the extra roster spot is used for someone else, Haase is sent to AAA and Sanchez plays C some days, DH on others, and I'm fine with him spending some time on the bench to allow lefties like Mitchell and Frelick to get more playing time.

One MLB season is 162 games played over 186 calendar days. A player gets credited for one year's service time after accumulating 172 days on the 26 man roster. Therefore, if a rookie like Gasser is kept down for 15 days, he will only get 171 days and not accrue a full year's service time. Turang, for instance, has 0.165 years (or 165 days) of service time, so the Brewers will get him for six more full seasons. Frelick is only at 0.072, so if he were only up for 99 days this year, he still wouldn't have a full year's service time.

Monasterio has 0.128 years of service time, so if it he is worthy of keeping, the Brewers have him for an extra year. But, he's probably slated for a reserve/utility role, and those guys generally aren't kept around if they start getting paid seven figures in their arby years. A starting pitcher who remains a starting pitcher through his pre-arby and arby years would be worthy of keeping around the extra year. No one is talking Super Two, which would mean keeping him down until June or so. You get the extra year after a few weeks in the minors. With a pitcher starting every 5-6 days, that could be done pretty easily by starting the year with him down, bringing him up for a spot start and sending him right back down until he's needed again. When he's been down a few weeks (while getting a few starts in the majors) you bring him up permanently. It sucks for the players that this is in the CBA, but teams do it all the time to gain the extra year. Why I brought it up is that he's one of the few guys who should be able to handle a full season's worth of starts. If they do what I described above, then it's only being done to gain the extra year. They'll say otherwise, but that'll be the reason. You could be right that the Brewers say it's not worth it, and keep him in the rotation the whole year. I'd be fine with that, but service time is something to think about.

Yeah, MLB.com is normally pretty flowery in their prospect write-ups, and they concluded Gasser's piece with "He's close to establishing himself as a back-end starter and gives Milwaukee a much-needed promising lefty arm." If they're saying back-end starter, they're not expecting a top-of-the-rotation guy. He should still be a solid part of the rotation for years to come, and there is value to that. If they feel that the team's chances are much better if he's in the rotation all year, then he'll be there. But, seven years of service is better than six, even if he's a mid-rotation guy and not a top-of-the-rotation guy, so that's why I thought it would be interesting to see if they find a way to keep him down long enough to gain that extra year.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with Gasser. They could probably send him up and down as the 6th starter a few times to save a year's service time, but he's also one of the few guys we have who could probably handle a full season's worth of starts. I'll guess that unless he completely dominates spring training, they'll keep him down to start the season and bring him up for a spot start or two over the first few weeks before permanently putting him in the rotation. I think they'll give Hall every opportunity to start, but they may keep him on a strict limit early on, leading to some short starts, where one of our other starter/multi-inning guys can come in. Ashby may be the same way, but he also may need some IL time before he even sees the MLB field, so he's a question mark until he gets on the field. Ross has had tons of injuries and has never pitched over 108 innings (which was in '21 when he got his last injury that has kept him out since). There's just way too many ways things could go, but these things tend to sort themselves out over the month+ of spring training.