monty57

I think the bolded part hits the nail on the head. I'd think it'd be structured something like the Hoskins deal. Let's say $30M in '24 and $40M in '25 with a $10M player option buyout. That would make it a 1 yr / $40M deal or a 2 yr / $70M deal. Cot's has us with a projected $102.5M opening day payroll. I would assume Adames would have to be traded, which would put us around $90M, and we could clear a few million with guys like Clarke, Haase, and Bauers if necessary. I think they'll hold Williams for now, looking to trade him next offseason or at the deadline this year if they're out of it. Would Mark and the ownership group be willing to put OD payroll in the $120M range? They've done it in the past, so maybe, especially if Amazon has put them at ease that they'll get their TV money. Next year, they'd be at risk for paying Hoskins and Snell, but they really don't have any other salary on the books except for Yelich. Plus, unless they add a no-trade clause, they could flip either of them to a bigger market who would be willing to pay them for one-year deals. The big risk would be both of them getting injured, which would seriously hamper us in '25, but seems pretty unlikely. I'd call it feasible. I certainly wouldn't count it out on the belief that a bigger market will always step in and outbid us. The Brewers have signed a few of these deals over the years (including Hoskins this year) that people didn't think we could pull off. It's probably out of the payroll range the ownership group wants to be in right now, but for a Cy Young pitcher, Mark & Co might surprise us.

I think you are correct that Black should be the 3B, meaning that if Adames is retained we'd have a competition between Ortiz and Turang for playing time. The reason Black may not be on the opening day roster is for service time reasons. They could start the season with Turang at 2B, Adames at SS and Ortiz at 3B with Monastario or someone else as the utility guy. Then a few weeks into the season, Black could come up and replace whoever isn't performing at the MLB level. Could come down to whether they think Black has a realistic shot at Rookie of the Year. Otherwise, getting a full year of him as a 29-year old is worth more than a few weeks to start this season.

This is pretty much where I am as well. FWIW, Baseball Trade Values has him around the same level as a Gasser-type prospect. Fangraphs/Steamer projects him at .237 / .319 / .436 wRC+ 103, 3.1 WAR Turang is projected for .246 / .320 / .372 wRC+ 82, 1.2 WAR Ortiz .266 / .321 / .410 wRC+ 97, 1.4 WAR Black .241 / .341 / .390 wRC+ 101, 0.8 WAR They have replacements, but they would probably lose a win or two by trading him. Honestly, I was surprised he still posted 3.4 WAR last year with his 94 wRC+. He has a good glove, but so do Turang and Ortiz. I think that if Ortiz puts up the Steamer projection listed above as a SS, he'll beat the 1.4 WAR they're projecting, and Turang/Ortiz/Black could post similar WAR to Turang/Adames/Black. It probably wouldn't be as good as Ortiz/Adames/Black, which is what I would expect to be the primary lineup if Adames isn't traded. Adames doesn't have nearly the same trade value as Burnes, so I don't think it's necessary to trade him, and I'm pretty indifferent to which way they go. I doubt at this stage that they'd find a really good use for the money saved. I hope that if they trade him they bring back a nice prospect or two, but I'm fine if they keep him around as a good veteran leader for the young team.

I’ve never heard the argument of “unlike normal jobs, sports doesn’t require hard work and a willingness to do what it takes to win.” Interesting take. I’m not upset, but the point isn’t that he “prefers to pitch one 3 out inning,” it’s that he refused to pitch more than one inning, no matter the situation. As you said, it’s a team sport, and he’s not playing for the team or his teammates, he’s playing for a bigger contract. I have no problem with players getting paid, there’s plenty of money in MLB for that. Many/most athletes who have elite skills in their position haven’t come out and said that they wouldn’t do what the team asked them to do to win if they thought it might affect their paycheck. I doubt many ever will, as most say they’ll do whatever it takes to win. Those guys still manage to get paid a lot of money. It wasn’t a secret to the Brewers, and it wasn’t a secret to the fans that the Brewers didn’t like it. Announcers, both local and national mentioned it a lot. It’s also no secret that the Padres’ strategy of amassing highly talented “me first” players completely bombed. Heck, now that he’s signed with the Astros and their new GM who seems to be eschewing their long-term winning strategy, he can ride with that team as it looks for one last hurrah before fading into mediocrity. So if a guy refused to run out grounders because it would decrease the chance of pulling a muscle, and running out grounders won’t help his stats for arby, that’s alright? Maybe an OF who stops running at the warning track so he doesn’t hurt himself by hitting the wall? I already mentioned Roger Dorn, who I thought was a funny example of a guy who wouldn’t risk injury because of contract concerns until his catcher came to his house and said “if you ever tank a game again, I’ll cut your nuts off and shove them down your throat.” I’d have to guess there are players in real life who feel this way about “me first” teammates. As to the “want his team to win,” he made it clear that if the team thought their best chance of winning was putting him in for a four-out save, he wouldn’t do it. That’s been my point all along. Finally, there is no maximum of three outs for a save. I think that may have just been a typo on your part, but if not, there are plenty of saves with more than three outs.

Show of hands. Who cheered on Roger Dorn in Major League when he said he wouldn’t get in front of a hard grounder because he could get hurt and it would hurt his contract negotiations? Who laughed when the coach peed on his contract?

I had a longer answer, but it's not worth arguing. You'd choose to be a "me first" guy who says "sorry boss, I'm not doing the work." I've worked with people with that attitude, and I'd be happy if I never had to do it again, because I have to end up picking up their slack while they're off blaming the system. Give me the guys who see the work and bust their butts to get it done.

Your argument to which I replied was: "But you hit the nail on the head in a roundabout way. Teams value the stuff you listed *very highly* and track it down to minutia. They know EXACTLY how many runs a player generates by taking an extra base. But when it comes time to sit down for arbitration and for the player to get paid, teams do not use a SINGLE BIT of that internal information and argue out of both sides of their mouth how the player is less valuable than he really is." Ergo, the teams are somehow dishonest in that they know the good and bad about the player, but only argue the bad. I just said that the agent also knows the good and bad about the player, and only argues the good. If one side is disingenuous for their action, then the other side is as well. Why does the team have power? Because of years of building their brand, the MLB has built a product that people will pay a lot of money to watch, and advertisers will pay billions to support. There are thousands of baseball games played around the world every day that no one pays to watch. He could've joined guys like league MVP Acuna and played in the Caribbean league this winter, where he would've made around $10,000-$20,000 per month to do the same thing he's being paid $19,000,000 to do in the MLB. There is nothing Hader could do that would pay him anywhere near what he can get by being one small cog in a wheel of the machine that is generating billions of dollars a year. Hader was a free agent this year. If the system is so bad, he could have played for any league in the world, but he chose to stay in the MLB. It must not be that bad.

I get your point, but imagine the boss is telling you that you're "only" getting a 596% raise from $687,600 last year to $4,100,000 next year, which is the raise Hader received in going into his first arby year. He then got a 63% raise from Milwaukee to $6,675,000 before being traded off to San Diego. A reliever getting $4.1M in year one of arby is a lot. It doesn't appear that he was hurt financially by the way the Brewers were using him. How much of the negative information do you think the agents bring up in the hearings? They're "arguing out of both sides of their mouth" as well. Arby is a nasty procedure, which is why most players and teams try to avoid it, but neither side is innocent here. The team is going to argue for the team and the agent is going to argue for the player. I've said it in the past, but the Brewers had some whiny, thin-skinned players on their team. Specifically, Hader, Burnes and Lauer. I'll be happy to hear "Bull Durham" responses, and let the players keep their complaining in-house.

Per Fangraphs / Steamer projections: Peralta 168 IP, 3.68 ERA, 3.3 WAR Miley 148 IP, 4.52 ERA, 1.3 WAR Rea 140 IP, 4.52 ERA, 1.5 WAR Ross 125 IP, 4.46 ERA, 1.1 WAR Gasser 130 IP, 4.49 ERA. 1.0 WAR Hall 123 IP, 3.59 ERA, 2.3 WAR Ashby 97 IP, 3.49, 1.5 WAR They have Hall about half reliever, half starter with 47 games, and only 16 starts, and Ashby with 54 games and only 10 starts. I think they'll give Hall a shot in the rotation, but they have to be worried about innings limits. I think Steamer's projection of 123 is on the high end of where they'd go, as he hasn't pitched more than 76.2 innings (done in '22) since the pre-Covid days. They could start him in the rotation and then shut him down late in the season, or they could start him in the pen and move him into the rotation when they're sure he won't go over his limit. Of course, there are a lot of guys with innings concerns: Ashby is coming off an injury and I don't think anyone knows when he'll be ready, Gasser is a rookie, Ross has been hurt for a couple of seasons and will need to build back up, Miley gets hurt multiple times every season. I've never been a big proponent of the six-man rotation, but this could very well be a year where we'll use it to keep everyone's innings down. It will be interesting to see how the team addresses this, and it's understandable why so many people think they should go out and find a veteran starter from the free agent pool.

I think you’re getting hung up on my vernacular. I’m not a gambler. Maybe I should have said “they still have a good shot at winning the division this year” rather than “they’re a good bet to win the division.” Someone who gambles would probably take my terminology to mean something different than what I meant. However, even though I don’t gamble, I’m tempted to put money on them at +1100 to win the division.

Exactly. The Brewers couldn’t waste the opportunity to add a ton of future value for the “feel good experience” of holding Burnes until he walked in free agency. I said from the start of the offseason that I expected a MLB ready pitcher in return, and they got one. Fangraphs has Hall slated for 1.3 WAR, but that’s with him spending around half the time in the ‘pen. Hopefully he can get around 2 WAR as a full-time starter. Add in Hoskins’ expected 2 WAR, and you’ve matched the expected 4 WAR from Burnes for less money. Throw in another top prospect in Ortiz, and you’ve got 12 years of discount-priced production to add to the loads of young talent already on the roster. Woodruff got hurt. That’s no one’s fault, it just happened and we have to deal with it. Hoskins signing was akin to the Avi Garcia signing. It wasn’t an “all in” move, it was a “we don’t have an MLB-caliber 1B on the roster, so let’s get one” move. Hoskins was a free agent, so we’re paying him what he’s worth. Burnes is playing on a seriously discounted deal, so he had tons of surplus value. That’s why it makes sense to trade Burnes while signing Hoskins. As of right now, we’re probably about the same talent level as we were to start the offseason (Woodruff was already hurt then). However, we should have more balance between pitching and hitting and a lot of reason to believe that we won’t take a big step back after this season is over. It also opens the door to an Adames trade prior to opening day, as Ortiz should be able to match his production. Or, if there isn’t a big market for Adames, we could take a bit of a step forward offensively by replacing Turang with Ortiz. At the end of the day, we’re still a good bet to win the division this year, and we have a lot better chance of being really good over the next 5-6 years as our young, talented players mature. Finally, if the team feels that Amazon is going to make sure they get paid their TV money this year, they might have some extra cash to add another veteran starter. The rotation does have some questions, so another proven arm couldn’t hurt. We won’t have much payroll on the books for a while, so a 1-3 year deal should be easy to cover.

I thought the Brewers should trade Burnes. I hoped for a MLB-ready starter, thinking Harrison or Tiedemann, who were a bit higher-ranked than Hall. But, they got a Top 60 infielder as well, so I think it’s a good return. The guy on the MLBtv clip said the Brewers view Hall as a starter. I think they’ve earned some leeway in that regard with their recent track-record. He’s been a top ranked prospect for a while. Let’s hope he can live up to the billing. The Brewers should get a lot more WAR value out of the guys they got than they would’ve received from one year of Burnes. This does seem to open the door wider for an Adames trade, and I hope they can sign another starter. I’m excited to see what all the talented young guys can do this year. Should be exciting baseball.

I'd guess that it was a major factor in why he signed here. There were probably a number of one and two year deals, but no longer-term ones. Hoskins wants a longer-term deal, but he's coming off an injury so two-year with an opt-out is a good contract for him. If he plays like he expects himself to, he'll opt out, probably getting a buyout and a long-term offer from a team next year. If he doesn't play well, he gets paid for another year. The Brewers will have very little money on the books in 2025, so it's a risk they can take.

Yeah, without the knee injury, he would probably have gotten his long-term, higher AAV deal, and the Brewers wouldn't have been in on it. Because of the injury, he's a nice fit for a 1-2 year window. As much as I've been pining for this move, it's because we could get an upgrade at a position of need on a contract we could afford. He's a roughly 2 WAR player, so there's no reason to take too much risk on length or AAV. 2 WAR players are nice guys to get on shorter-term deals to fill holes in the roster. It is nice that he's been pretty steady, between 2-2.3 WAR/year. I'd compare this to an acquisition like Avi Garcia, but Avi was much more hit-or-miss. As long as Hoskins' knee is okay, he's a pretty good bet to get somewhere around a 2 WAR.

I think that's probably the case. The Brewers are/were probably looking for an MLB-ready guy like Harrison or Tiedemann, and it's very possible those guys aren't available. With the team they have (even before Hoskins), I never thought Burnes would be traded for a package of guys in the low minors, and that might be all that is being offered. That said, let's not fool ourselves. A comp pick will have a lot less chance of MLB success than securing someone like Harrison or Tiedemann right now. They're no sure things, but they're highly thought of and have already hit the majors. I think it's pretty likely that they will provide more WAR value over the next 6-7 years than Burnes will provide in 2024, and I'd guess it will be around 3x as much. Burnes is projected by Fangraphs to get around 3.8 - 4.0 WAR this year, while Tiedemann is projected to play half a season in TOR and get 0.8 WAR That would be 1.6 WAR for a full season and about 2 or 3 less wins than with Burnes. Hoskins was a great get for the Brewers not because he's a superstar, but because the projected 1.7 - 1.8 WAR is a lot better than the black hole we had. Bauers is a zero WAR (aka replacement level) player. By definition, he is a guy you try to replace. We just replaced him with the best available option. From the get-go, I didn't think they'd be able to afford Hoskins if they kept Burnes and Adames. If they can, then they'll definitely be a better team in 2024 if they hold onto the impending free agents. No one can doubt that. They'll just be a lot worse in '25 and beyond, and I don't think anyone can doubt that. I'm excited we got Hoskins regardless of any other moves we make. I will, however, be sad when I see the headlines "Burnes and Adames opt for free agency" at the end of the season. That will be a lot for a team like the Brewers to account for, especially when "Hoskins opts out of the second year of his contract" would be soon to follow.

I wonder how many Brewer fans' heads would explode if the next announcement is Burnes to the Giants for Kyle Harrison. Personally, I think it would be a good move, but at this point I think it would be seen sort of like the Hader trade.

From the moment I saw MLBtr's projected 2/$36 contract, Hoskins became the #1 guy I wanted the Brewers to target. This is a great fit for the Brewers, and the opt out makes a ton of sense for him. Putting a RH bat like this in the middle of our LH-heavy lineup should really help, and he doesn't block anyone, as we didn't have a real 1B option on the roster. In a dream scenario, we'd add a Soler or Martinez for DH, but realistically DH will be used to keep our OFs in the lineup and rested. Let's see what other moves are coming, but right now I'd say the Brewers should be the odds-on favorite to win the division.

I'm outside of Wisconsin, but not far enough to be out of the "Blackout zone," so I just can't watch Brewer games. I hope whatever happens with Prime will get rid of the blackout restrictions so I can once again watch the Brewers.

That kind of makes sense. If the Brewers are looking for a shorter-term deal, Boras would try to leverage that to the bigger markets to see if he can land a longer-term deal. When that doesn't happen, he goes back to the Brewers. Players hire Boras to get the most money. Sometimes that means taking the one-year, prove-it deal. The Brewers should be in the playoff hunt, could give him the everyday 1B job, would put him in the middle of the lineup, and play in a hitter-friendly park. It wouldn't be the worst landing spot for Hoskins.

Hoskins has been #1 on my wish-list all offseason. This has been a very slow offseason, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Bally/Diamond bankruptcy has had a lot to do with that. As to Hoskins specifically, I'd guess that he's trying to land a longer-term deal, and will wait it out until it either happens or it's obvious it isn't going to happen. I think the Brewers would go one or two years, but would probably balk at anything longer than that, as they'll have a lot of pre-arby guys getting raises in a few years, and they probably don't want a 34/35 year old making a lot of money on the books at that time.

If he plays well in Japan and comes back in a year or two to play in the MLB, do the Brewers still own his rights or would he be a free agent?

So, the Dodgers signed Teoscar Hernandez for 1 year / $23.5M, with $8.5M of that deferred. MLBtr had him projected for 4/$80M. Only one signing, but it'll be interesting to see if teams are less willing to sign longer-term deals to position players this offseason. Something's holding up the market, maybe that has something to do with it. The Brewers don't have many big salary obligations for the next couple of years until the young guys start hitting arby. If this becomes a trend, I hope they can take advantage of it and get a guy or two on shorter-term deals.

I hope Attanasio doesn't let his emotions get in the way of "the baseball people's" opinions. The last time he did that, we signed guys like Lohse and Looper "to remain competitive." He seemed to have learned the lesson and has let his GM make the baseball decisions and it's worked out pretty well. Making a move to get back at Counsell for going to the Cubs would be a really bad decision. Plus, Burnes is projected to be a 3.8-3.9 WAR guy. Assuming we'd get a 1-2 WAR replacement, we're talking a relative difference of of 2-3 wins. If someone believes that we're a rebuild team without him, then they can't believe that we're a playoff team with him. I believe that Attanasio is going to try to be competitive no matter what. If we keep him, then we should be signing a few guys to fill the holes on the roster to really "go for it" this year. If we're trading him, then Attanasio will still try to build a competitive roster in '24. He's not going to throw in the towel unless he's sure the fight is unwinnable.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Trading Burnes makes sense because the value he can bring back will be significantly higher than the value of keeping him for one more year. Assuming he's traded, we will get player(s) back from the trade. I would guess that they'll target a trade based around a Top 20ish prospect who is MLB ready and on the roster opening day. They will then have a decent chunk of money to add some additional talent. With what we have + the Top 20ish prospect from the Burnes trade + Hoskins, we can still be in contention this year while we continue to add more prospects onto the MLB team. We lose something in the drop from Burnes' 2024 production to the production from the Top 20 pitcher we get back, but we make that up by using the money to upgrade elsewhere (1B). Then we have the Top 20 pitcher for five more years while the team that traded for Burnes loses him after one year, which is the big reason we should make the trade. Hoskins and Burnes are only making similar money this year because Burnes is going to be seriously underpaid for one more year before free agency. He's a 10-year/$300+M guy after that, which is why teams want to trade for him. Hoskins is a nice bat who may fit in the Brewers' payroll because they don't have many other players making much money for the two years or so that he would be signed. Trading a Cy Young-caliber pitcher will hurt. Of course it will. But, he's only one player, and we can still compete without him. But to do so, we'll need to get someone back in trade and use the money saved to bolster the roster. They aren't just going to trade him and then say "well, we give up, let's play for 2027." They'll still have a good core to build around. This is just how baseball in small markets needs to be played... field a good player as long as he has team control and trade him before losing him to free agency. Maintain a path where you always have good young players on the roster and on the farm. Free agency is for one- or two-year stopgaps to fill holes, which is what Hoskins would be. This isn't an exact science, and things could go wrong. If they do, then Hoskins (and Williams, and maybe others) could be flipped at the deadline and we use the year to give experience to our youngsters, and build from that next offseason. Note that this could also apply to someone like Soler or Martinez. I just think Hoskins is the best fit because the Brewers could use a 1B upgrade and the others are pretty much DH-only guys. Any of them would bolster our offense, which could use a big bat in the middle of the order.

My number wouldn't be much higher than the 2/$36. He's not some Godsend, he's just a guy who I think would fit in nicely to our roster. $18M/year for 2 years should fit into the Brewers' budget even if they're cutting back this year and next. My question is, why do you believe that MLBtr is so badly mistaken in this situation? What do you think they're missing that they put out a suggested contract so far off that if they were close to correct he'd already have already signed? It's just as likely that all the teams who have been rumored to have interest are seriously lowballing him due to his injury. Maybe if someone comes near 2/$36, he'll jump at the offer. All we have now is a site's prediction and our own opinions. I don't know what's going on, and I know that my opinion in the matter is worthless. I'm just hoping the site is close to right and the Brewers are able to sign him. Until he signs, I'll keep on hoping.