monty57

Stearns is good at his job, so he's going to get paid for it. He's in a great position right now. If he wants to go back home, it appears the door is open for him and he'll get a big contract to go. If he wants to stay in Milwaukee, he has leverage over the next year to negotiate a much bigger contract than he may have gotten if the Mets hadn't made it public that they wanted him. I really hope he stays, but he has shown that he's one of the best in the business so he should get paid as such. I'm sure Attanasio realizes this and will put his best offer on the table.

24 years old. Had a good year last year with a line of .287/.371/.441/.812, but hasn't been very good for his seven-year minor league career with a line of .262/.339/.345/.684 in 1,877 AB.

I think Conforto made sense before the Mets slapped a QO on him. I just don't see a team giving him a multi year deal and then losing a draft pick. With the season he had he was looking at a 1-year prove it type of deal. Could he be this year's "Grandal/Moose" signing? If the Brewers have a little extra money in '22, but are worried about the arby raises going forward, a one-year deal makes a ton of sense. Just have to decide if one year of Conforto is worth giving up a future draft pick. If he's the .900 OPS bat in the middle of the lineup, then he's worth it. If he's the 2021 version of himself, it would be a big mistake. Still, it's less risky than signing a $100M+ multi-year deal, or "trading the farm" for someone. I could see the Brewers targeting Conforto as our "big bat" pickup.

Cain at 5/80. Garza at 4/50. ARam at 3/36. Lohse at 3/33. Wolf at 3/30. That our biggest signings ever are in the $10-$16M AAV, and we have Yelich on the books for seven more years, and we have a lot of arby raises are all reasons why I think that signing someone like Castellanos is a pipe dream. However, if we have realized a new revenue stream and can add another big contract, I'd pay a little extra and go for Bryant at 6/$160 ($26.67 AAV) over Castellanos at 5/$112 ($22.40 AAV). More realistically, I think our big signing would top out at someone like Chris Taylor (4/$64) or Rizzo (3/$45). Suzuki would be interesting at 5/$55 (plus an estimated $10.125M posting fee), and it's interesting that they liken him to Avi Garcia, who they predict will sign for 3/$36. Of course, if we have that "surprise new revenue," I may want to extend some of our arby guys, and any FA contract over 2-3 years could hurt our attempts to do that. All speculating aside, I am very interested in how the Brewers will approach this offseason, which could be one of the more important offseasons in team history. I really hope the CBA negotiations don't drag out too long.

Because of how the MLB arbitration system works and because of how many of our top players are going through that process over the next few seasons. Of course, it might get worse with the new CBA, but we'll wait to see how that eventually plays out.

I think he makes a lot of sense, especially if the Crew also re-signs Escobar. . You only need so many jack of all trades on the roster. They definitely wouldn't spend money on both. At some point, you need to get a premium bat. I don't think Taylor or Escobar are a premium bat. Garcia had the 49th highest OPS in baseball in 2021, and the Brewers weren't willing to risk a 1 year/$18.4M contract for him. Escobar had the 69th highest OPS in baseball. With that in mind, I assume that by "premium" you mean someone who can OPS over .900, but in 2021 there were only 15 players who did that and those guys cost a lot. Reynolds and Castellanos are names that have been thrown around. It'll be great if Stearns can somehow pull something off, but I think a lot of fans are setting themselves up for disappointment this offseason. The Pirates reportedly were asking for a package centering around the top prospect in baseball (which we couldn't match unless we trade one of our "big 3" MLB pitchers), and Castellanos' estimate from MLBTraderumors is 5 years/$115M, which I doubt we'll offer. I think we're more likely to see "no black holes in the lineup" approach than we are to see the Brewers sign a $20M+ AAV bat for the middle of the order. If we want a 1.000 OPS guy, then Yelich better remember how to hit.

I think the Reds got really hurt by 2020. They had some pieces and decided that would be their "all in" year, so they probably went well over budget to sign a few players. Then Covid hit, the season was shortened, and there were no fans in the stands. I'd imagine that the Reds owners lost a ton of money, and are still reeling from it.

Yeah, I don't get the "we can't win with this offense" line of reasoning when we posted one of the best seasons in Brewer history. If not for the team resting it's players for the final two weeks, they would have likely won the most games in team history. I know people don't like to hear it, but the playoffs in baseball is a bit of a crapshoot, largely depending on which team gets hot at the right time. The Braves were arguably the worst team that made the playoffs this year, and they won it all. Stearns has limited resources to work with, and has decided to build the team on pitching and defense. Every team has their weaknesses, but people are really hammering on our lack of offense and seemingly forgetting that we had a pretty good team this year that won a lot of games. They just aren't built to be an offensive juggernaut. Stearns is putting resources into keeping the other team from scoring, so they shouldn't have to score a ton of runs. As to Garcia, the Brewers obviously didn't want to risk having to spend $18.4M on him for one year, so that either shows that they don't think he's worth that much, or that they don't have that much to spend. I hope it's the former, as I hope they have some money to spend this offseason. I think that Taylor showed enough this year that they are willing to let him start, with JBJ and probably another RH-hitting OF as the backups getting a decent amount of playing time. Stearns must feel that the limited resources are better spent on upgrades elsewhere.

And we'd have a bunch of posters who would forget all about 2021, and would be hoping he'd exercise his half of the 2023 mutual option: "Paying him $12M instead of the $8M buyout is only an extra $4M, so it's a no-brainer." Avi Garcia is a great example. A year ago he was a horrible signing, and now people would double this year's salary to get him to stay. It's amazing how much twelve months can change one's mind. If I had to guess, I'd say that Garcia will be a little worse next year than this year, and JBJ will be better next year than this year. But Garcia probably won't be a Brewer so my hope is just that Bradley can live up to his contract for at least one of the two years he'll be here. I'd say "and then we can move on," but he'll be on the books for quite a while after he's gone.

According to Fangraphs, Steamer has him pegged as a 2.0 WAR player in 2022 due to his horrendous defense. He'll turn 30 next March. There is no way I'd sign him to a long-term deal if the NL doesn't adopt the DH, and even if they do, it would be very risky to sign him to a multi-year deal for $20M+ per year. Assuming Woodruff, Adames and Burnes all continue to excel, we could be looking at five guys making over $20M in a couple years. Even the most optimistic person couldn't possibly believe that we could afford to have $100M+ going to five players and still be able to afford to field a full team, much less one that would have any hopes of contention. The highest opening day payroll in team history was $122,530,400 in 2019. I believe we have a new TV deal, so it's possible we could go over that, but I'm not privy to the Brewers' financial information. My belief is that if they do raise payroll substantially this year (over $120M, not to the $150M that's been thrown around in this thread), that it will be for a shorter-term deal. Either they do a "Mouse/Grandal" type signing if the market goes that route, or they trade for an expensive guy in the last year of his deal.

He turns 32 at the beginning of next season. Past his prime, but there's reason to believe that he's not totally washed up. His career averages are .230/.311/.394/.705. I don't think anyone should (or does) expect a lot from him, but if he can post a high-.600's OPS with great defense, he's got some value. Not $9.5M worth of value, but he could be a decent 4th/5th OF. I can't believe that they'd go into the season penciling him into a platoon in RF, getting roughly 80% of the starts. I'd think that with the current roster, you'd see Yelich, Cain, and Taylor as the starters with Bradley getting starts as needed to give guys rest, noting that the Brewers tend to use their subs more than most teams. I wish they didn't have to pay him next year (or really for the next several years because of deferred money), and I also wish that Ray would take a big step forward and force his way onto the MLB roster. Since we do have to pay him, and since Ray hasn't shown himself worthy of even a backup role at the MLB level, I can only hope that Bradley "bounces back" and gives the Brewers something for the money they're paying him.

Good move by the Cubs. He's got 1 yr / $10M left on his contract, which is nothing for them even if he fails to perform. He posted a 2.9 WAR season in 2021, so he should help out in a rotation that is really thin, and they should be able to flip him at the deadline for some prospect help for their rebuild.

I don't believe Taylor is an everyday player he appears to be best used as a 4th or 5th OF. I wouldn't mind sending Taylor to another team if the right deal comes around. May I ask why? The only down seasons he had were 5-6 years ago when he was first brought up to AA. He's hit well since, including a combined .251/.324/.467/.791 MLB line in 324 PAs over three seasons, with a wRC+ of 109 while playing above average defense: RngR 5.4, UZR 5.2, UZR/150 10.8. There's a long history of good OFs around the league that were Brewer prospects, but we never gave them a shot, preferring to trade for or sign "proven" guys. I'd like to see Taylor given a chance as a starter.

I think Taylor was into "tanking" before tanking was cool. He changed the long-running Brewer strategy of disregarding draft picks and using the money they could have spent on the draft to sign meaningless free agents to give fans the impression they were trying to compete. He put the focus on draft and development and dropped the MLB payroll in much the same manner today's "tanking" teams do. He got fired largely over the Hammonds signing https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-dec-23-sp-3830-story.html, but in my mind he really started the ball rolling in the right direction. We had a better farm than we'd had in a long time, and a low payroll which allowed Melvin (under new ownership) to add a significant amount of payroll once the prospects started getting MLB ready. Plus, I believe he brought in Jack Z., who I credit for the string of good draft picks that brought a lot of talent into the system.

I remember Melvin saying that he preferred players that graded out really well in one category. I'd guess that Stearns would look more for players who don't grade out poorly in any categories. At least early in his tenure, Melvin talked about wanting to get groups of prospects that would come up around the same time, whereas Stearns has preached "sustainable success." Agree fully with the final sentence. Both of them have brought success to the Brewers, which cannot be said for most of our GMs.

Right. Though both contracts were also longer terms than the 2 years that Hader has left, and both Chapman (age 29) and Hendriks (age 32) were older at signing than Hader (age 28) is now. If Hader was a free agent & limited to a two year deal for some reason he should command a higher AAV than comparable relievers got when they were older & signing longer term deals. True. I was just saying that if he were a free agent now, and signed the Chapman deal of 5/$86, in his first two seasons he would only get a little ($6-11M) more than he is likely going to get paid in arbitration. I don't think we'll get a "major haul" by trading him because as a reliever/closer, he's not that valuable even though he's really good at what he does. No matter how good he is, he's not more valuable than a decent player at another position. During the offseason, it would be hard to find a GM who is going to give up a top prospect for a good reliever/closer. As others have said, the best return for him would probably be at the trade deadline when emotions become more important than statistics and valuations. It's when emotions run high that bad decisions are made, like trading away a top prospect for a relief pitcher. The problem is, even if we could get a "Chapman for Gleybar Torres" return next July, fans wouldn't want to make the deal if we were near the top of the division because we'd be "giving up during a playoff run." Therefore, we will probably only maximize the return on Hader if we're out of the playoffs at the trade deadline in one of the next two seasons, which we shouldn't be with the pitching we have. I think we could get a decent player in return for Hader by trading him in the offseason, I just wouldn't expect a monster return. The question is whether a decent young player at a position of need, plus around $25M over the next two years to sign a free agent is worth not having Hader as the closer.

We had some mashers back in the day, with guys like Sexson, Burnitz, and Jenkins. We didn't win many games, but they hit a lot of homers. I prefer watching our current "all around players" win 90+ games and make the playoffs every year, but to each their own.

Both of the deals you mentioned were around $17-18M AAV, which would mean that even if Hader gets a record deal (around $18M/year), his two-year total would be around $36M. If he gets $25-$30M in his final two years of arby, his surplus value would only be $6-$11M vs. what he could reasonably expect to make on the free agent market.

His "aggressiveness" left them flailing in limbo, signing over-the-hill "name" players for a few years while sitting around .500 and out of the playoffs until the final collapse, which left Attanasio sitting in an interview with Bill & Brian with a dumbfounded look on his face saying "I don't know what happened, but something has to change." Along came Stearns and after a very short "rebuild/retooling," we've been back in the playoffs for four straight years. Melvin took over a system with a great judge of talent in Jack Z., and some really good prospects in the system. He added some talent and got them a couple of playoff appearances, but he drained the farm in some "go for it" moves that I think cost them more playoff appearances than they made during his tenure. It could be argued that with the prospect talent he inherited and the amount of excess payroll room he had to play with, they should have gotten more playoff berths than they did. Heck, the Royals went to two World Series, winning one of them, with much of the roster being built from Melvin's "aggressive" Greinke trade. He left the team in a mess, and I strongly believe that we would have had a long run of futility if he had stayed on as GM. To his credit, I do think that Attanasio was a different (more hands-on) owner during Melvin's tenure, and in listening to some of Melvin's interviews in his later years, I think there was a disagreement in the direction the organization should take. It's hard to say what, if anything, Melvin would have done differently if he had "today's Attanasio." I am glad that Attanasio had his epiphany, and I think Stearns and his team have done a great job as is evidenced by the team's performance during his time here. It probably sounds like I hate Melvin. I don't. After decades of futility, it was wonderful to see the team become relevant again, and Melvin had a lot to do with that. However, he didn't have as much success in his 13 years at the helm as Stearns has had in half that amount of time.

WPA is a fun little stat, but even the guy who came up with it said that he was making up a stat that would make relievers look more valuable. Relievers are still the lowest rung on the "value ladder." When the Brewers made Hader a reliever, and then kept him there because "he was too important to the team when they're trying to compete" to give him a shot at the rotation, they greatly reduced his value in trade. He is a dominant reliever, so he has value in trade, but nowhere near the value of a dominant starter or position player. Put Hader on the market, and then put Woodruff or Burnes on the market next year when they have two years' service time remaining, and see what gets you a better return.

When you have success, the guys making that success possible are going to get offers. I just hope Attanasio is able to convince Stearns to sign a nice, long extension.

I agree that some posters are overvaluing what we can get, but this is a different offseason than last. Of course, we first have to get past the new CBA, but assuming that happens, there is no longer a concern over whether or not there will be fans in the stands next year. Additionally, we aren't coming off a the crazy, shortened 2020 season. Last offseason, owners and GMs didn't know what to expect as far as revenues for the coming year, and didn't know how to evaluate the talent based on the 2020 season. This year, payrolls should be more "normalized," and GMs will have a good idea what to expect of players after a full season. Let's put it this way, if last year was a normal offseason, we probably wouldn't have let Knebel go. Things are definitely different than they were a year ago. As to Hader's value, the Cubs got Nick Madrigal and a pitching prospect for a season and a half of Craig Kimbrel. That's kind of the return I'd expect. Nothing earth shattering, but someone who can start for the next 5-6 years and maybe even make a couple All-Star appearances. Throw in a prospect, maybe as high as someone at the back-end of the Top 100. This also saves the Brewers around $25M over the next two seasons, which could allow us to do another "Avi Garcia-type" deal. I don't think it's a sure-thing that we trade Hader. In large part, the decision is whether management thinks we are in bad enough need of upgrades elsewhere that it merits trading him. I doubt we have too much money to spend, so trading Hader could get us a young player at a position of need, and free up enough cash to sign someone else.

If this delays the season, than I agree. If the "work stoppage" is December and January, and the season isn't delayed, I doubt that most fans would even notice. The article noted "manipulating service time." It will be interesting to see if the players are looking to shorten the "three pre-arby years, three arby years" timeframe, or if they are just trying to stop the practice of holding players in the minors to gain an extra year of control. Then, it will be interesting to see if they try to backdate things so current players that were held in the minors would gain an extra year so they'd become a free agent sooner. If they simply get rid of the language that allows teams to "manipulate service time" to gain an extra year of service, then it would have future ramifications, but wouldn't hurt nearly as much as it would if their current crop of players became free agents a year sooner.

Once the new CBA is finished, so probably sometime next spring. So it sounds like we won't be able to sign a strict DH type like Cruz until we know for sure, putting American league teams ahead of National league teams in the pecking order to sign free agents. *not that I want Cruz, just using him as an example. That's one potential side effect, but it's potentially even more worrisome than that. There's a lot of things that could happen with the CBA. It could cause a work stoppage, which could shorten or even eliminate next year, which is a year that should have one of the Brewers' best teams in their existence. It could shorten the pre-arby/arby period, which could eliminate some year(s) of control for all of our pre-arby/arby guys, and would make it harder for smaller market teams to compete. I hope things don't change too much, but this CBA could really hurt the Brewers.

Who are some names you would consider as a "big hire"? Asking out of curiosity...not very familiar with what the potential candidate pool even looks like I don't have one. That's not my job. Haines seemed like a quick hire who had experience with the Cubs. My peeve against him has been game approaches. It never felt like the Offense had a leg up on that day's opposing Starter. It just felt so much like sit at the plate hold out til strike one blew by down the middle of the plate. And add the amount of strike 3s that were looking? Think the guy had poor pitch sequencing approach that left hitters guessing wrong. It was overdue. Nobody feared the lineup in 2021. Narvaez was awful in 2020, may have fixed it on his own in offseason and Haines in season magic derailed it again. Garcia the same only he never listened to what Haines tried exploring him to do. Yelich, Cain, Hiura, JBJ the list is long of failed seasons towards guys meant to be a big contribution to said offense. I just hope there's a hire where a solid amount of time passes. That we see a reason to understand the hire. Coles and Haines both at time of hire already felt questionable. I understand why Haines was let go, but what you're saying about Narvaez and Garcia is just false. It was reported during the offseason that those two specifically were visited by Haines to work on their swings and approach, and both of them gave Haines credit for their improvement. The Brewers had an average offense that went ice cold at the exact wrong time. Haines was the obvious choice to get the axe. I hope the next guy in line is able to communicate well with the players and have a positive impact on the team.