monty57

I think Fielder has to be resolved first, and to me the Boras statement should show that Prince is not likely to re-sign here. I'd guess Weeks will be on a short list for extensions once the Brewers decide that Prince can't be extended. As I've said before, and JJ said in the previous post... it takes two to tango. The Brewers have to get some kind of discount for the fact that Weeks has missed a lot of time to injuries and hasn't put up that great of numbers in his career. They can't pay him one of the highest 2B contracts in the league based purely on potential. That said, he's not going to come for free. If both sides will be reasonable, I don't see why he couldn't be extended. I'm sure Weeks understands that he's one waggling bat away from another wrist injury that will cost him millions if he's not under contract.

What are you worried about TheCrew? At that rate, Parra will see 36 innings this year. Don't be greedy :-)

I don't have a problem with this decision, since it is between Villy and Stetter, and the Brewers had three lefties in the pen, which would force the righties in the pen to pitch way too much. The problem starts with Suppan in the starting rotation over Parra/Narveson, giving us three lefties in the pen to begin with. It then extends to Macha using Narveson as his LOOGY, and never using Stetter or Parra. Once you get past this, it's easy to see why sending the lefty with options down over the righty with options makes sense. When either Suppan is finally shown the door, or when someone gets injured, we are going to find ourselves in the position of not having anyone to fill in, as Narveson will never pitch more than an inning, and Parra will pitch around one two-inning outing every two weeks. We'll end up putting Narveson in the rotation (I agree with Logan that Macha has something against Parra) and he'll be on a 3-4 inning limit for several starts, destroying our bullpen and forcing us to lose several more games than we should (above and beyond the extra games we'll lose because Suppan was named the #5 starter). Boy, if only someone could have seen this coming :-(

Could it be that Boras is forcing the Brewers' hand, trying to force a trade NOW already? Not now, but I'm sure Boras would like to see Prince in a big market in July. Big markets bring better marketing opportunities, and Prince is very marketable, so I'm sure that's swirling through Boras' mind. When you look at who the Rays are starting at DH, I could definitely see them trading a couple of their prospects (not as much as the Braves gave up) but still get a decent return. Yet another reason for me to root for the Rays and against the Yankees and Red Sox. If the Rays are at or near the top of their division, it would be very tempting for them to pick up a big bat. If the Brewers are selling, Prince would be a great option for them. They could always turn around and flip him in the offseason if they are really short on money. Greatly increase your chances at a World Series for $5MM and get a roughly equivalent haul back when they trade him away... not the worst plan. I think duplicating that Tex trade is unlikely. The Braves probably wouldn't do that deal again and there might not have been any other teams that would have then and now. One thing about owners / GMs. When a playoff appearance is in sight, someone will always do something stupid. If the Brewers aren't in the race, I hope Melvin can capitalize on this. Honestly, who wouldn't want Prince on their team? Pretty much every team in baseball would be better with Prince on the roster. If Melvin plays this correctly, he could get a good return. As I said earlier, he really just needs to get one good, young MLB ready pitcher (not easy to come by, but they are out there) and some high upside prospects. We have most of our team set for next year, so we don't need three MLB players back... we wouldn't be able to fit them on the roster if we got them.

I agree with a lot of what's said. If Boras is truly looking at 8 years / $200MM, the fans of Milwaukee will turn on Prince and Boras pretty quickly, making it far more palatable for Melvin to trade him either this season or next offseason. As long as we're able to get some form of young pitching back for him, we should be in pretty good shape. If we don't have to pay Suppan ($12.5MM), Hall ($7MM), Davis ($4.25MM), Counsell ($2.1MM), Riske ($4.5MM), Hoffman ($7.5MM), Fielder ($10.5MM), Bush ($4.215MM), Zaun ($1.9MM), and possibly even Hart ($4.8MM) next season, that's $59.265MM off the books from this year's salary. Sure there'll be some arby increases, but many of these players will be replaced by players from the minor leagues, and league minimum players that would likely come over in the Fielder trade. Most of the positions (C, 2B, SS, 3B, LF, CF, RF?, Yo, Wolf, Narveson, Parra, and most of the bullpen) will be covered, and with the money we'll have available, I don't think it should be too tough to coax some free agent talent to fill in where our minor leaguers can't. If we could trade Prince for a stud young pitcher, we'd have enough money to sign or trade for a good expensive starter (like a Javier Vazquez trade this past offseason) and have a dominating rotation next year to go with what should still be a good offense. I like Prince. He's a great player. However, if Melvin plays his cards right, we could have a better team next year than we have right now.

Letting Fielder go can not be sold to some casual fans, and even some more dedicated fans. It is hard to blame them for being upset about a financial system where only a few elite teams are allowed to sign the top elite players in free agency. I suspect that the Brewers will lose casual fans who will simply stop following the team after Prince leaves. We do play in an unfair system, and it does suck that we do. That said, we can still be competitive with a mid-tier payroll, currently in the $80-90MM range. My biggest worries with Prince are that we either (A) try to prove to the world that we're big shots, and pay him whatever he asks for, crippling the team's flexibility or (B) we let him walk and get a supplemental pick for him. I'd love to see him signed to a contract that would still allow us to build a team around him. If we can't sign him to that contract, trade him mid-year this year or next offseason. We will get better return than we'd get by letting him walk, and for the franchise as a whole, one year of Prince is probably not worth 18 years of good prospects (3 prospects / 6 years each) or whatever we'd get in the trade. This is exactly why I've long been a proponant of offering long term extensions to young (arby eligible) superstars. At least you get an extra couple of years out of them before they eventually head for greener pastures. If we can't sign Prince, hopefully we'll extend Weeks and Escobar, get some talent from the Prince trade that we could have for a long time, and we could definitely be a good (playoff hopeful) team for a long, long time.

I agree that Narveson deserves to be in the starting rotation, and the person who least deserves to be there is Suppan. The two pitchers who will be on the roster past this season are being misused in the 'pen, while washed-up Suppan gets to start. It appears that Narveson has taken over Stetter's role as primary LOOGY, while Stetter gets little work and Parra gets none. I share Briggs' concern that they will keep Suppan in the rotation too long, and by the time they pull the plug on him, Parra and Narveson will no longer be stretched out to start games. I don't believe that the Brewers would go through all of this rigamarole only to bench Suppan after one start. He'll be there far too long, maybe even all season if he shows any sign of life at all, and it will hurt us. As for Davis, he said this spring that he gets worried when his fastball is in the 87-89 range, as "that's hitting speed," and he feels he needs to throw his fastball "slower than hitting speed" in order for him to be effective. I haven't been able to watch his starts, so I don't know the problem. If it's wildness, hopefully he'll be able to get that figured out pretty quickly. He's got a pretty good track record, so I'm not too concerned about him yet.

It would definitely be nice if he can continue to be a productive big leaguer, and it's great to see him getting off to a good start this year. I think things will play out with Fielder, Weeks, Gamel, Lawrie, etc, and there will be playing time for all of the players left. Hopefully, McGehee can remain a solid 3B for the Brewers for the next 4-5 years, solidifying one position while shifts occur elsewhere. It makes it even better that we stole him from the Cubs for nothing :-)

The problem is, that much like his FA value may be depressed with Gonzalez, Howard and Pujols on the FA Market, if Gonzalez is on he trade block teams could play that against us. That's a good point, RyDogg, and I think that may lead to us getting a better deal mid-season this year than we could get next offseason. When teams are in a bit of a panic to make a playoff push, they may be more likely to give us the house than they would be when they can take their time and explore all their options in the offseason. Of course, I hope we're in the playof hunt this season, but if we're not, I'd definitely look at trading him this season.

There are certainly a lot of moving parts in this decision. If we assume that Lawrie can play 2B, RF & 1B and if we assume that Gamel could learn RF and 1B, we need to decide whether we'd be better off with Weeks at 2B and Gamel & Lawrie at 1B/RF, or if we'd be better off with Lawrie at 2B, Gamel at RF or 1B, using the money we'd spend on Weeks for a 1B or RF. We could also run an OF of Braun, Gomez/Cain/Schafer/Gindl, etc with Gamel at 1B, Lawrie at 2B and use the extra money on pitching. If we would indeed have to spend $8-10MM/year on Weeks, which seems to be the concensus on this board, then I'd probably rather go with the latter, although I wouldn't be mad if he were signed for that contract (I'd assume Melvin can run a budget).

Only if he can convince everyone that he should be compared to Robinson Cano. There's really no other justification for this salary that I can find. Cano's career OPS is .820 vs Weeks' .772, and he plays 160 games every year, while Rickie has never played more than 129 and that was three years ago. I'd say if Rickie stays healthy all year and continues his current 1.240 OPS he may make $6MM next year, but I'd guess he's paid less than that even if he stays healthy and has a good (.800+ OPS) year. I'm not an expert on arbitration hearings, but there's really no comp that should justify him getting $5.5-6MM. That would be a 100+% raise over his current pay. I may be guessing low at $3.5MM, but I think $5.5-6MM is too high. Looking at other MLB 2B, I'd say that as a free agent, Rickie would have a hard time getting more than $6MM/year right now. If he stays healthy, hits 30-40 HR and gets on base at a .350+ clip (all of which he's capable of), he could probably get more than $6MM / year in free agency, but it still would be hard pressed to get that in arby when his current salary is $2.75MM. Since he is capable of the previous referenced numbers, I would be for extending him, just not for an above market value contract when we should get a below market value contract if we're assuming the risk. I may be missing something. Can someone show me what second basemen he comps to that would justify paying him $6MM in year 3 arby and $8-10MM / year in for his first two years of free agency?

Does everyone realize that he's making $2.75MM this year and still in arby next year, so he'll probably make $3.5MM or so? If we are talking a "Yo-style" contract which includes this season, 4 years / $26MM seems too high. 2010: $2.75MM 2011: $3.50MM 2012: $6MM 2013: $6MM Total 4 years / $18.25 $6MM / year would make him one of the highest paid 2B in the league. If we're assuming the injury risk, we need some kind of price break, and he hasn't put up seasons like Utley, or even Brain Roberts to justify him making the $10MM/year it would take to sign him to a 4 year / $26MM contract. In other words, we'd still be signing this contract based on his potential, not on what he's done so far, because what he's done so far probably doesn't justify him being one of the top paid 2B in the league. Now, if you are talking about extending him for this season and four additional years (through 2014), it is more realistic. 2010: $2.75MM (current deal) Extension 2011: $3.5MM 2012: $6MM 2013: $6.5MM 2014: $7MM Rickie is 27 (turns 28 on Sept 13). The first contract would make him a free agent at age 31, the second at age 32. I'd probably like to see the second contract, with 2014 being an option year.

Weeks' situation is definitely interesting. Long term extensions involve a lot of injury risk to the team, so the Brewers could be hesitant given Rickie's past. At the same time, Rickie's injury history means he would have to accept less than I'm sure he feels he's worth. Unless Rickie personally feels he's an injury risk, I don't see him signing too cheaply. Unless the Brewers offer something close to market value, I would guess that he will want to put together a healthy season before locking himself up. He knows he'll get a decent contract at free agency even if he keeps getting injured, so the Brewers don't have enough leverage at this stage to sign him to a ridiculously under market value contract. Doing a quick look at ESPN's salaries (which may be from last year... I'm not sure), there really aren't many 2B's making close to $6MM/year, so signing him to a Bill Hall-sized contract might be an overpay in this market even without the injury history. If the salaries are correct, Chone Figgins signed for $5.7MM with Seattle, Brian Roberts makes $8MM and by far the higest paid 2B is Utley at $11MM. Weeks makes $2.75MM this year, my estimate for 2011 is in the $3.5MM range. Say $5-6MM/year at FA years, and 4 years (including this year) / $16-$18MM might be closer to accurate. Anything higher than that would probably not be giving the Brewers any kind of discount, which they'd have to receive for assuming the inury risk. Because of the first two cheap years, 4 years/$24MM would mean that you would be paying Rickie $8-9MM/year (more than any 2B except Utley) in the final two years of the contract, and he hasn't done enough to merit that. I really don't see the Brewers offering a lot more than 4 years/$16-18MM based on history, Weeks' current salary and the going rate for MLB 2B. If I were Rickie, I don't know if I'd sign that deal, knowing that a healthy season would increase the value. If he can prove he's an elite 2B talent, he'd probably get $7-9MM/season on the free agent market. Of course, knowing he's been injured a lot in the past may lead him to go for the security of the contract. After all, he was willing to accept a pretty small raise from last year to this year without taking it to arby. So long answer to short question, but if the Brewers and Weeks could agree on 4 years / $16-18MM, I'd probably be for it. Even then, I could envision a lot of irate fans in a few years if Rickie continues to get injured or doesn't live up to the levels we all feel he's capable of having.

I guess I misread Russ' post and I'm kind of confused, because obviously, we can't sign a free agent pitcher now that won't play for the Brewers now, but will play for the Brewers in 2014 & 2015. Therefore, if we don't re-sign Yo, and we want this comparable free agent, we have two choices: Sign a comparable (to Gallardo) free agent now who will be around in 2014/2015, or try to sign a comparable free agent when Yo is gone. I agree with Logan that Yo is more of a "John Lackey #1" than a "CC Sabathia #1." If we had the money, we could have signed Lackey this past offseason, putting us on the line for $82.5MM, and having him for all the years of the contract, including years in which Yo may no longer be on the team. We all know that wasn't really an option, and since we passed on Lackey, we do not have him now or in 2014/2015, so other than for speculation sake, there's really no other reason to beat this horse... we don't have a comparable free agent signed for 2014/2015. So on to option 2. Since contracts usually go up, and will likely take that trend at some point in the next four years, signing a FA in 2014 for a comparable contract of $11-$13MM will likely get us a worse starter than Yo. Signing a comparable starter to Yo will cost you more. Therefore, if we don't sign Yo to an extension now, our rotation would very likely have to be either less talented or more expensive (and quite possibly both) in 2014 and 2015. Neither of those seem to be good options. One thing is for certain... we will need starting pitchers in 2014 and 2015, so it's Melvin's job to determine how best to position the franchise now and in the future. One option is to wait and see how our prospects turn out and see what's available on the free agent market and what it costs. The option Melvin took is to try for some cost certainty now with a fairly stable commodity in Gallardo. I think there is a lot of risk in the "wait and see" method, just like there is in signing a long-term contract. It's all in weighing the risk. If the player bears the injury risk in the pre-arby/arby years (like Prince Fielder did), the player is entitled to a market value contract. If the team bears the injury risk, the team is entitled to a below-market-value contract like the ones Braun and now Yo have signed. I think Melvin's learned his lesson from signing Hall and offering a contract to Hart that you shouldn't offer these contracts to anyone. The risk is far too great when offering these contracts to decent players, or people with bad history who happen to have some good years. However, when you are dealing with good-to-great players, who have been good-to-great at all levels and continue to excel at the Major League level, then I think it's worth the risk to buy out some free agent years at below market value. In short, don't offer an extension to McGehee - play him out for as much as you can get from him year-to-year - but look at offering an extension to Escobar if he continues to prove he is the real deal.

Hart is also the only RH bat on the bench when he's not starting and could be needed to pinch hit for a pitcher instead of for a position player. I'm glad to see the platoon, but I really hope it will be more of a "soft platoon," as I agree with Brewer Fever that Edmonds will not be able to maintain a full season of playing 75+% of the time, and Hart has no chance of "catching fire" with one start a week. As expected, Gerut's only had 1 AB which will assure that he'll be full of rust when he's needed.

Yes, but that would be like if the Brewers signed a comparable pitcher NOW, to a guaranteed contract to pitch for them in the 2014 and 2015 season. pitchers just get hurt so often that it just doesn't sound very exciting to me. I guess that depends on what Yo would cost if he were a free agent today. I can guarantee it would be far more than what we just signed him for. Also, I doubt you'll be able to sign a top of the rotation starter for the money Yo will make in 2014 & 2015. You would probably be able to sign a #3/4 starter. The risk is having him and risking injury or not having him and having a weaker rotation for the same money. Barring injury, Yo is very likely to continue to be a good pitcher, so while regression is always a concern with long term deals, it is significantly reduced with someone like Yo than it is with someone like Wolf. Therefore, the main risk is injury which can be mitigated by Lloyd's of London. Plus, the team option mitigates the risk by reducing the price significantly if Yo isn't worth the price tag. It is highly doubtul that Yo would be dumped during his arby years, even if he were to get injured, so we would have to pay him during those years anyways, so we're really looking at our risk being the one year of free agency we are buying out, plus the $600k option buyout and a million or two here or there in the arby years. Of course there is a chance that this contract ends up being bad for the Brewers, but they have to take some risk. I would much rather see them take the risk and sign young superstars to long-term team friendly deals than have them sign aging, decent ability free agents to market value deals, or have them continually churn through talent, trading superstars away while they are still under "team control," eternally hoping your scouting team defies the odds to maintain some semblance of playoff hopes in the current (unfair) MLB salary structure.

You also have to take into account the opportunity cost of not extending Yo. By signing him, we get an extra year or two of him. If we didn't sign him, there is a very good chance that we would spend more money in the free agent market on an inferior pitcher to replace him. Plus, the extra time gives our Rookie league / A ball pitchers more time to get major league ready. I hope Melvin has learned not to offer these contracts to iffy talent (Hall, Hart), but anytime he locks up superstar talent, I'm for it. Sure there's risk, but there's risk in not doing it as well.

That's the coolest thing about spring training. All the families I've met are wonderful, and it really brings a human factor to the game. It's almost like watching a high school game, as the parents and grandparents cheer on their kids. I haven't brought my son out there yet, but if he saw that Thomas backpack, he'd be your son's best friend :-)

Really, the way Brewcrew5 laid it out seems fair, as Yo shouldn't expect too much more than that during the arby years, and the Brewers are probably saving a few million in the two free agent years. For taking the risk of injury on themselves, the Brewers deserve some price break. I like the idea of making the last year a team option year. I like this, and really hope this is true.

Well, if this is true, it's great news. I know there's risk with signing anyone long term, but I like seeing our young superstars signed so they'll be here more than five or six years, and I hope this is a trend that will continue. Determine who your core players are and lock them up while they're still relatively cheap. Go year-to-year on the rest of them. Of course, this could be a Prince Fielder-style two year deal to avoid arby, but that doesn't seem likely. I'd guess this season plus five, getting us through the arby years and buying out two years of free agency.

Well, I guess an idea could be for a group including Mark A to purchase a TV network highlighting Brewers, Packers, Bucks, etc. and "work a deal" to show all of the Brewers games. Get the network onto DirectTV, Dish Network and local Cable networks and benefit from dual ownership like YES and NESN. He'd have until the current deal is up to get the network up & running and get the deals signed.

Was that 60-yard dash official a female by any chance?

That's an interesting thought, RyDogg. When two teams play, the visiting team gets some of the gate, so it's not unfathomable to believe that TV revenue should be shared as well. Splitting the TV revenue between the teams playing would be a shorter leap than splitting all teams' TV revenue equally amongst all other teams. Teams like the Yankees would still get more TV revenue than others, but the difference would be cut substantially. It would also allow the teams competing most directly with the Yankees and Red Sox (Rays, Jays, Orioles) to receive more of the benefit than teams in other divisions. Let's say the Yankees have a $162MM deal, or $1MM/game, while the Rays have a $16.2MM deal, or $100k/game. When they play, the revenue could be split, so that each team gets $550k. After all, the Yankees couldn't play the game without the Rays there, so why are they paid much more (as a team) to play the game? It's not likely to happen, but fun to think about. Regarding Levine's comments, it would be nice if ESPN would correct him on the fact that Milwaukee does indeed put their revenue sharing money back into the team, and can still only field a salary that's 40% of the Yankees. But then, I never expect the media to take their personal opinions out of the picture.

Arguing the inflation vs deflation debate here seems out of place. I just tried to make a point as to one possibly valid reason to sign Prince now. My final comment is that every economist never agrees on anything. I've read many, many economists who believe inflation is on the horizon, but here's one you've probably heard of: Bill Gross in PIMCO's April 2010 Investment Outlook: "The reason is complicated, but at its core very simple. As a November IMF staff position note aptly pointed out, high fiscal deficits and higher outstanding debt lead to higher real interest rates and ultimately higher inflation, both trends which are bond market unfriendly. You say never trust anything that comes from The Heritage Foundation, I'd say never trust anything that comes from a Keynesian. I guess we'll just have to disagree on things like inflation and other negative effects of massive national debt. Oh, and to simply reverse the actions they took to increase the monetary supply, the Fed would have to flood the market with Treasuries and GSE debt, which could drastically increase interest rates, crashing our economy and causing funding of future debt to be problematically expensive. Bernanke has a big job ahead of him, and I hope he's able to walk the tightrope adeptly. I'll stop talking Economics on a baseball board now... go Brewers!! :-)

That's awesome, Hawing... I found myself in the picture. Other than about an hour and a half wait in line to get into the parking lot, everything was great. I agree with those that say the drunkenness was down, as I really didn't see any obnoxious behaviour. The lines to get into the bathrooms in the park were bad, but since I wasn't drinking, it didn't bother me too much. Someone with a lot of beer in them could've missed half the game waiting in line. Overall, a good day... except for the Brewer loss.