monty57

The issue (or perceived issue) is that the larger market teams would spend the money on payroll, but they have to give it to the small market teams who pocket the cash and don't raise payroll. Therefore, money that would have gone to the players (with the union getting their cut) instead goes into the owners' pockets. Meanwhile, small market or rebuilding teams would argue that spending a few million extra on payroll won't necessarily make the team any better, and it may keep them from giving playing time to a young player trying to prove himself, and hurt them long-term. Obviously, adding payroll doesn't always make a team better, so maybe they could come up with something like: if the team receiving the revenue-sharing funds doesn't spend it improving their team in some fashion, then they have to put it back into the pool. The money wouldn't necessarily have to add to payroll, but maybe they upgrade the locker room, or get a new scoreboard... something that isn't just "pocketing the money." The union is looking to get rid of things designed to somewhat level the playing field between the big markets vs. small markets, so I'd hate for these things to go away. I'd like to eliminate the uneven playing field, not make it worse.

My biggest fear of McNeil is comparing 2020 + 2021 (dead ball) to 2019 (live ball) his production dropped dramatically. His BA drops almost 50 pts, OBP drops 45 pts, and he only hit 11 HRs with 58 RBIs (20/21) compared 23 HRs and 75 RBIs (2019 with 60 fewer ABs). That concern is why I hope that he can be picked up somewhat cheaply. The Mets have spent a lot of money, and even though the owner is rich teams still don't like going over the threshold where it affects their draft pick. If they're a little bit over, or if they just continue to spend and need the roster spot, they may "give away" McNeil just to clear salary or free up the spot. He seems to have lost favor in New York, and Stearns looks for value buys, so maybe there's a fit. I wouldn't give up a lot for him, but he could be a great "buy low" guy who could really be a boost to our offense if he gets his swing back. Of course, we're also saying that about Yelich and Hiura, so we have to be careful how many of these type guys we have on the roster.

That likely happens anyway unless Attanasio/Stearns decide to step up and give either Woodruff or Burnes a 200+ million dollar contract, which I don't see happening with Yelich taking up about 20-25% of the payroll over that same time-frame. I think they'll end up trading away some of their big names prior to them becoming free agents. If they have some good young guys (Mitchell, Ashby, Small, etc) and get back a lot of talent from the trades, they could remain competitive, or at least not have to go through a total rebuild. Purely a guess, but I think some pitching (Houser/Lauer, maybe Hader) gets traded this year for young position player talent. Ashby will be in the rotation with Small and maybe even Mitchell and Turang getting their first taste of the big leagues throughout the year, and we'll have more pre-arby talent from the trades. Next offseason will be where bigger moves are made, as we won't be able to afford all of our arby guys' raises, so some combination of guys like Woodruff, Burnes, Adames, Renfro, Lauer, Haouser, etc. will have to get flipped just to stay under payroll. That's also why someone like Olson doesn't really seem like an option, as we won't have money to keep all of our current arby guys, much less adding another star who's in his arby years. I don't see emptying the farm for Olson only to trade him away a year later. To topic of this thread, McNeil is also a guy entering arby, but he's got three years left and won't be overly expensive (Cots estimates $2.5M in his first year). However, he would still be among the players getting more expensive over the next few seasons and adding to the payroll pressure. Depending on what happens in the CBA and other moves made once a deal is struck, the Mets may be looking to shed a little salary to stay under the "lose draft pick positioning" threshold (if it still exists in the new CBA). McNeil may be a casualty of this, and I'd be happy if the Brewers got him cheap because the Mets need to shed a couple million. He could play a good role on the '22 Brewers and could probably be flipped in a year or two for more than we gave up.

Olson is going to be really expensive. If we trade for Olson, it probably means we're going "all in" for the next couple of years and then suffering through an extended period of really bad Brewer baseball. I understand the desire to acquire someone like that... he's really good. But I'd rather hold onto our top prospects and look at acquiring some guys who aren't quite as good, but who will not "gut the farm" to acquire. Houser / Lauer are somewhat expendable because of Ashby, and we could get a decent return if we decide to trade one of them. Hader has been "on the market" for a while, and I don't see us holding him to free agency and losing him for nothing. He could get a decent return in trade and save us some money to upgrade elsewhere. We will likely make some moves to upgrade the offense, I just don't see us getting a superstar.

I'd like this trade. I have no idea how the A's would value the prospect return, but that isn't much more from the Mets than the aforementioned proposal for Hader, and the Brewers would be adding a lot to their offense without completely mortgaging the future.

Relief pitchers/closers just don't have as much trade value as other positions, especially in the offseason. That's probably the main reason Hader hasn't been traded yet when his name's been floated around for a couple of seasons. Right now, he may be more valuable to the Brewers than he is in the trade market. As his team control shortens and his salary increases, that gap gets a little smaller so I think he'll be traded before he becomes a free agent, but I think some people will be underwhelmed with the final return. I look at it as the net sum of what we get in return, and what we do with the money saved. We're probably not getting a young, All-Star position player for him, but if we could get (for instance) a starting 1B with 5-6 years of team control, and use the remaining money to shore up other positions, we could be in a better position than we would be by holding Hader to free agency. As to the topic of the thread, McNeil was seen as a nearly untouchable player not that long ago. He had a bad year in 2021, but I don't think he's as bad as some here make him out to be. If the price is right, he could be a good addition with a lot of upside and the ability to play multiple positions.

That's probably too black and white. If a new league was formed, you would potentially have some players who would run for the "greener pastures" of a new league, but many/most players would stay with the current league. Think of the original USFL, where guys like Reggie White & Jim Kelly headlined the stars of the new league, but most players stayed with the NFL. Even with some star power and a lot of financial backing, that league didn't last long. It would be a bad move for the union to do this, as really it's not what unions do. They don't own and run things, they represent the players/workers against those who own and run things. In this "new league" scenario, the union would become the owner. That would make it a conflict of interest for them to continue to represent players in the MLB, and if the players really feel that they need representation in the current league, they would probably find new representation in the "new league." The MLBPA does very well financially in their current role, so why would they risk it to do something that would probably crash and burn? The alternative to union ownership would be that the players do some type of Employee Stock Ownership Program, where they become the owners of the league. In this scenario: (A) There would be no role for the MLBPA, so why would they condone doing this? Are they going to represent the players against themselves? (B) Who would run it? Are the players going to play the game during the day and run the business in their spare time? Are they going to hire people who would essentially be their bosses and would have the ability to do things like cutting and trading them? This isn't a lifetime job, the average career of a pro athlete is pretty short. © Since there is a lot of turnover in baseball, how would ownership be structured? Would a player be an owner until he's cut, and then the replacement would gain ownership? Would only the current players be the owners, and as they age out of baseball, it will be owned and run by a bunch of former players? (C.1) If the current players become the owners, are the shares transferrable? If so, how long will it take before "some rich guy" buys up majority interest and we get back to where we currently stand? It may be a fun theoretical concept for a school classroom or online fan site, but whoever said there is "absolutely zero chance of this happening" was spot on. When the "real life" aspects kick in, it's not going to happen.

While I'd rather not have sponsor names all over the jerseys, I care less about that than I do about things that actually change the game, like runners on second in extra innings, moving the mound back, changing the ball, eliminating shifts, etc.

Right now there are winter leagues going on. How many people do you think set their schedule to make sure they don't miss those games? I've flipped to some on TV, and there are generally very few fans in the stands. Fans watch the MLB and their favorite team, most don't just tune in because it's baseball. Players will make far less money playing for the Carolina Gigantes instead of the San Francisco Giants? The players could have Saul Goodman representing them in their negotiations, and they'd still end up much better off than they would be by trying to start a league to compete with MLB. I'd guess the owners would laugh if the union said "we took a vote and the MLBPA members are no longer going to play for the MLB, the union members will play in a start up league." They'd sign the pact, essentially ending the union's presence in the MLB, would have their attorneys write up some new rules and would start calling the players and telling them to drop out of the MLBPA and come back to the new union-free MLB.

We don’t know that’s how it’ll work. Nelson Cruz is the rarity. Most teams are using the DH for load management rather than signing a solid aging bat. Teams just aren’t looking to fill these spots with a Harold Baines or Edgar Martinez—guys that can’t play the field. I agree that many teams will use it that way. That's why I said "potential landing spots." Take Prince Fielder's situation years ago. It seemed pretty obvious that he was going to an AL team, so half of the teams in baseball were out of the bidding before it began. If the NL had a DH, it would theoretically push the price of "DH only" guys higher due to the extra demand. These guys may be uncommon, but they are paid a lot of money. The union gets a percentage of everyone's paycheck, so if the 26th roster spot is used for a guy making league minimum, they make a lot less than if it is used to pay a DH an eight figure salary. The union knows that smaller revenue teams will often use it in the way you suggest, which is why they're against anything that helps smaller revenue teams. Bigger market teams are more likely to pay a lot of money to have a big bat at DH.

They played the abbreviated 2020 season with a DH. I don't see why they'd wait a year to throw it in if part of the new CBA. Nelson Cruz is crossing his fingers. Many more teams will be an option and bump up his pay pretty good. That's why the union should really want the DH. That's 15 more potential landing spots for aging vets who can still hit but can't play defense. Those guys can be pretty expensive compared to the utility guy that would normally take that roster spot. Guys like Nelson Cruz can make a lot of money as a DH, but without the DH, they're out of baseball. The owners should want the DH because it limits the chance of their pitchers getting hurt, and the W-L record after years of interleague play seems to show that the AL (with the DH) has the advantage over the NL. The AL has won 52.3% (3,482 W / 3,180 L) of the games since inception. It may not seem like a lot, but if I think I have a competitive disadvantage, I'd like to try to fix that. I know some people are really opposed to the DH, but I'm surprised that it's taken this long for it to (probably) get implemented in the NL.

Really just depends on the longer-term strategy. If the strategy is to "go all in" and blow things up in a couple of seasons, then yes, you trade Ashby for a guy who's already in his arby years. If the strategy is to try to maintain success without having to go into a big rebuild (which Attanasio and Stearns have said is their goal), then you hold onto Ashby and your top prospects. In that case, "giving up a better player" would probably mean trading Woodruff for a monster haul, but I think we're probably a year away from that happening.

That's why I think it may be time to see what he can do as a cheap 5th OF. He has some assets that could help at the MLB level as long as he's playing for league minimum. Heck, he might even "prove himself" enough to stick around for an arby year or two. He's been surpassed by a number of guys on the prospect depth chart, so he's probably never going to get the starting role in Milwaukee. He's nearing the stage where we either get something out of him as a bench player or let him go and see what he can do elsewhere.

I think it makes a ton of sense to trade one of the starters this offseason. First, Ashby's ready to start and I don't want to waste a year of his service time throwing out of the pen waiting for someone to get hurt. Second, all of our starters are set to hit free agency around the same time. I'd like to break that up a bit. Get Ashby in the rotation to start this season, while working in Small. Next year, if Small seems ready, then we can trade someone else and put Small in the rotation. Getting new guys in incrementally seems preferable to either riding the guys to free agency and losing the entire staff or trying to trade them all off at once when they're closer to free agency. Plus, any of the starters could net a good haul in trade. If something like MrAllen's Houser for Voit and Gallo is possible, I think we'd be a much better team with Ashby as our #5 and Voit and Gallo in the lineup than we are with our current roster. Edit: After looking at the contracts, I don't think the aforementioned trade would be what Stearns is looking for, as Gallo is a FA after this season, and Voit has two years. It might not be a bad trade, and it would probably make us better this year, but I'd guess that Stearns would look more for a young, pre-arby guy coming back. It is fun to look at the BTV trade scenarios and see people guessing that we'd have to give up Hader to offset Bradley's bad contract.

Nah, I'd rather he sink or swim in AAA first. It isn't going to help him to get 5th OF sporadic at bats. Plus I'm thinking it would be a sinking.... I just wonder how much upside is still there. The 5th OF isn't going to get many opportunities, which is why we'll probably use a "super utility" guy instead of an OF-only guy. However, if we choose to go with an OF-only guy, then why not spend league minimum on Ray instead of spending a million or two on a veteran. So, is it worth it to hold Ray in AAA hoping something will finally click, or is it time to turn him into a cheap bench player for a few seasons while he's playing for league minimum?

Decent career for a bad team. They're different types of players, but it's kind of like what could have happened if the Brewers had extended Jeff Cirillo for 8 years / $100M+ back in the late 90's.

I'd leave it to Stearns and company to determine if McNeil is "fixable," but if they think he's really the guy he was from 2018-2020, and not the guy he was in 2021, then he could be a nice addition. I think the McNeil and a couple of prospects for Houser would be a realistic scenario. Honestly, if we want to upgrade the offense, we need to trade from the starting pitching depth. If we want to retain our starting pitching depth, we probably aren't going to upgrade the offense. Since Houser is on roughly the same free agency track as Woodruff, Burnes, Peralta and Lauer, I don't really have a problem using him or Lauer in a trade. Just hold onto Ashby and any other good prospects who will have to replace some of the current arby guys in a couple of years as they get traded or hit free agency. The defensive shift thing could be concerning. I'm sure Stearns is aware of the true story, so if he were to trade for McNeil, I don't think it would be an issue.

So we'd need to pair one of our "big three" pitchers with Yelich just to get nothing back in return. Yeah, I don't think he's getting traded.

The owners initiated the lockout, so it would seem odd if the union could tell the owners/GMs that they couldn't talk with each other about potential trades. That would be like the owners telling the agents they can't talk with their clients about potential teams they're interested in signing with until the new CBA is signed. I'm certainly no expert in labor law. It just seems like that wouldn't be something the union could dictate upon the owners.

So here are the guys who posted a .900 OPS or more last year: Bryce Harper (1.044) - nope, even if the Phillies gave him to us, we couldn't afford the contract Vlad Guerrero, Jr. (1.002) - BTV has him at 79.8 value, but there's no way the Jays would take a group of prospects for him. They might listen if we offered up Burnes or Woodruff, but I think they're building around him as the face of the franchise. Juan Soto (.999) - not a chance in hell we're getting him. Would probably take Burnes and Woodruff. Fernando Tatis, Jr. (.975) - probably the least likely player in baseball to be traded Shohei Ohtani (.965) - probably the second least likely player in baseball to be traded Frank Schwindel (.962) - I'm sure the Cubs would trade him, and he could be a good target, but I doubt anyone here would consider him "proven" enough to be the big upgrade we need Nick Castellanos (.939) - free agent looking for a 7-8 year deal that the Brewers are not going to do Joey Votto (.938) - the Reds would love to get out from under the $57M he's owed over the next two years Kyle Tucker (.917) - Good, young OF. Could probably get him for Woodruff or Peralta straight up Aaron Judge (.916) - the Yankees just don't seem like the type of team that would trade one of their stars just because he's heading into his final arby year. If they were, he might be a guy we could get for something like Houser and Mitchell if we could afford his projected $17.5M arby salary for his final year before free agency. I wouldn't make that trade. Bryan Reynolds (.912) - Pirates reportedly asked for the Mariners' Julio Rodriguez, one of the top prospects in baseball, in return for Reynolds. We don't have the prospects to make this happen. Tyler O'Neill (.912) - I'd love to have him, but probably not "the Cardinal way" to trade one of their young studs to their chief rival for the NL Central title. Matt Olson (.911) - been heavily discussed in his own thread. My take is that he'd take something like Frelick, Turang, and Mitchell to get and would pretty much guarantee a massive rebuild/selloff in two years. Might be worth it to those who want to go "all in," but I'd hate it. Trea Turner (.911) - the Dodgers aren't trading him. C.J. Cron (.905) - also been discussed - is this repeatable, or just a result of playing in Colorado? That's it for the .900 OPS guys. The reality is that it will be really difficult for the Brewers to obtain a "middle of the order" bat, and it's even more difficult if they truly want to remain "continually competitive" as Stearns and Attanasio have stated instead of going "all in" and accepting a major rebuild in a couple of years.

Okay, according to Baseball Trade Values, Burnes has a value of 160.8, Woodruff is 110.4, and Peralta is 113.1. Which one do you want to trade to pick up the middle-of-the-order bat? We don't have the money to sign a free agent to a big, multi-year deal, it wouldn't make sense to trade away guys like Adames or Urias if the goal is to improve the offense, and we don't have a strong farm. I mean, the Pirates were asking for the best prospect in baseball in return for Reynolds, so we can't match that. So, since the only realistic way to get the "true middle-of-the-order bat" that we NEED is to trade from our starting pitching depth, and Houser and Lauer aren't good enough to land anyone of consequence, then which of the big three pitchers do we trade? I'd say not Peralta, because he's the cheap one for the next few years. That "middle-of-the-order" bat is going to be expensive for the next few years when we'll already have a ton of guys getting expensive, so it would pretty much have to be Burnes or Woodruff to offset the monetary cost of the new "middle of the order" bat. Otherwise, by next offseason we'd already be trading some of our stars just to dump their salary to make payroll. I like having the solid starting pitching we have, and I'd be comfortable trading away a Houser or Lauer for an upgrade, but since we NEED a "middle of the order" bat, I guess we have to give up more than I'm comfortable giving up. Of course, I don't expect this to happen. I expect that Stearns will find another upgrade, but not nearly to the level that some people will like. We'll go on to win the division and realize that we did not truly NEED as much as some people felt we NEEDED. We'll hold onto our top prospects, because that is what we truly need if we don't want to go into a decade-long rebuild, and we will continue to churn out winning teams as long as we continue with a strategy focused on remaining "continually competitive" instead of going "all in" for one or two years.

Need, or want? Last year we won 95 games without a "middle-of-the-order bat," so I'd say that we don't need one, although it would be nice to have one. If we truly need a middle-of-the-order bat, then we can simply trade away one of our pitchers and have any middle-of-the-order bat we want. We are built on pitching and defense, so most of our resources are tied up. Our current "middle-of-the-order" bat is set to make $26M this year, so we can't afford to go out and buy someone else, and Yelich's deal should be a big red flag against ever signing a deal like that again. Meanwhile, our "young" stars are getting more and more expensive, so trading away our best prospects may help us this year, but it will ensure a long, painful rebuild starting in a couple years. Additionally, the fact that the arby guys will be getting more expensive means that we probably can't afford to sign anyone to even a moderate AAV, multi-year deal because even if we have some free cash this year, we won't have extra money over the next couple of seasons. I think our best options are someone like Voit who isn't overly expensive, and isn't on a guaranteed contract so he could just be cut loose if we don't have the money for him, or we sit back and see who's available on a one-year deal in the short period between when the new CBA is signed and when Spring Training starts. People may not like the Brewers looking at value, but that's the approach that has built the team to where it is, which is arguably the best stretch of baseball the Brewers have ever played.

Taylor would be the immediate #1 CF, and we'd have some money to look at adding someone else. I think Mitchell is the heir apparent, so I doubt we'd make a long-term commitment. I honestly don't think it would be much of a downgrade moving from Cain to Taylor. The downgrade would be that we wouldn't have Taylor as a #4 OF, so we'd need someone who could fill that role, as Renfroe and Yelich aren't good options to back up CF. I'd think that Stearns could find a capable vet fairly cheaply who could step in as a backup OF to play all three OF positions. If this fictitious trade (Cain for Voit) went through, we'd be upgrading our offense with the addition of Voit at 1B/DH, and we'd probably get a boost in offense moving from Cain to Taylor in CF, so I'd be fine if we found a defensive whiz as a backup outfielder. That guy could come in late in games we're ahead, and Taylor could move to one of the corners to give us good defense to hold onto the lead. Plus, we'd have a lot of extra money to shore up other positions.

The Pirates are in obvious rebuild. The Reds put a lot of money into winning in 2020 and then Covid happened and now they're sitting with some big contracts and some talent, but not enough talent to be highly competitive and not enough payroll room to add much help. The Cubs are just confusing. They should probably go into rebuild after last season's losses, and trading Contreras makes a ton of sense. But then they signed Stroman. Are they really going to try to be competitive with the mess they have, or are they just making a show to keep the fans interested and unaware that they're really rebuilding? Pretending to be competitive could cost them the opportunity to trade their biggest chip (Contreras) and could keep them in the middle of the draft so they lessen their chance of getting star talent out of the draft. But, it does keep people in the seats and money flowing to ownership.

Voit will be 31 in February. I don't know how much upside is left to mine there. Upside was probably the wrong wording. What I meant is that he has a big bat that could put up big numbers if he can stay on the field all season. He could be a nice value pickup if we could get him cheaply in part because of his injury history. If we could somehow get Voit for Cain, then Stearns would have freed up a lot of money between Cain & JBJ that could be used to help elsewhere. You'd think there would have to be something else headed the Yankee's way, but if it's only a couple of low-level prospects like the JBJ deal then it could be a nice move by Stearns.