monty57

Don’t forget “if they really wanted to win.”

Acquisitions like this seem "ho hum." However, there are 26 men on the every team's roster. The Angels have shown that even with arguably the two best players in baseball, you can't win if you have big holes elsewhere in the roster. No one expects Clarke to be a star. However, he should be an above-average "7th or 8th option" in the bullpen. So, if we get to the 6th inning, both starters are out, and our guy is better than their guy, we have a good shot at winning. The mega-contracts get all the press, but filling holes in the roster with MLB-caliber guys instead of AAAA fodder is a big part of what gets you to the playoffs.

I agree, we should've spent like the Mets and Padres to guarantee ourselves success.

Agree. Middle relievers are kind of like kickers in football. You don't want the team to put any resources into acquiring them, but you expect them to do the job every time they go out there, and get mad any time they blow it. This is a decent pickup. Clarke should be the guy who goes out there in the middle innings in a close game. If he does his job, the team has a decent chance of winning. If he doesn't, we're going to lose. Through their limited workload, relievers are hard to project, but it's probably safer giving those innings to a guy with a decent track record in the MLB than it is cycling through minor leaguers or journeymen until someone sticks. He costs $1.25M, so he's not much more than the league minimum we'd give a rookie. Like the poor kicker, Clarke won't get credit if he goes out there and does his job, but having a steady guy to "not blow up" in the 5th or 6th inning could help us win a few extra games, and those games could get us into the playoffs. Like every trade, time will tell if we gave up too much. Based on WAR, as a non-closing reliever, it will be hard for Clarke to post more than probably 1-2 WAR if he's here two seasons. If either of the guys we gave up spend their pre-arby years in the show, they'll probably beat the WAR we get from Clarke. But, we probably aren't giving up anyone who will have much of a career, so I doubt this is a move we look back on and say "I can't believe we gave up that guy." Devanny's going into his age-27 season, so his upside is probably going to be a utility guy through his prime while he's cheap, getting dumped when he hits arby in his early 30's and starts getting more expensive.

Unless the team issued new shares, which would dilute the ownership of all of the owners, any new owner would get ownership by purchasing shares from a current owner(s). The selling owner(s) would get the cash and pay capital gains taxes on the gains. I believe there are CPAs on this board, so please correct my simple take here if it's incorrect, but here's how I believe it works: The owners in an LLC share in the profits/losses of the team... it "passes through" to their personal finances. The Brewers probably have a decent-sized cash account to cover some losses, but the owners would ultimately be responsible to make payments if the team couldn't make them. The team could take a loan or the owners could "write checks" based on their ownership interest. The LLC would protect them from some liability, so they could choose to let the Brewers go bankrupt and save their personal fortunes, but then they'd lose the team, so they'd probably just send some cash to cover this year's deficit, and cut payroll for the following season(s) to recoup their money. So, one or more owners just lowered their ownership stake, so they'd have less profits/losses passed through each year. The new owners now get that share of the profits/losses each year. No one is putting their whole fortune on the line or throwing a bunch or excess capital into the team.

Looks like the Royals needed the 40-man spot for Lugo, so the Brewers were able to get a solid-if-unspectacular middle reliever for a couple of non-40-man guys who are getting a little older and probably didn't fit in the Brewers' plans. Fangraphs projects Clarke to post a 4.3 ERA with 0.2 WAR, with a 35.7% GB rate, and 8.63 k/9 to 3.14 BB/9. Nothing outstanding, but should be a decent option for one of the last guys out of the bullpen. Better than cycling through a bunch of garbage arms until we find one who sticks.

If this becomes the bar for superstars, I’m glad we locked in some of Chourio’s FA years when we did.

I expect that the value received in a trade of Burnes would far outweigh the value he would give us for one season. I'd be bummed if they don't trade him. While it would increase our chances this year, it would decrease our chance of being competitive for the following 5-6 years. To the topic of corner IF, I found it interesting that Steamer projects Black to have an above-average bat this year. It usually doesn't project highly for rookies, so it's looking pretty highly at him. If correct, we've got 3B covered for years, and should focus on 1B and starting pitching. I've said it numerous times, but I'd look for a high-end young arm (like Tiedemann from the Blue Jays or Harrison from the Giants) in a Burnes trade, and a low-end Top 100 guy for one of our young OFs. Then I'd offer a 2-year deal to Hoskins to man 1B as we should have extra money over the next two years with all of the pre-arby guys on the roster. C: Contreras 1B: Hoskins 2B: Turang SS: Adames (probably doesn't have a ton of trade value, so might be best to hold onto him) 3B: Black OF/DH: Yelich, Chourio, whichever two of Mitchell, Frelick, Weimer isn't traded Bauer is backup 1B/DH, Taylor is a RH back-up OF, someone like Henry or a vet takes backup C, and we get a utility guy as a backup IF. The two young pitchers we get in trade will fit in with our current crop of young talent, and hopefully some of them will sign extensions to keep a strong core of young talent for years to come. We're a couple trades (Burnes and an OF) and a Hoskins signing from being a pretty solid, young team that could be competitive for a long time.

They could exercise his first option and pay him $25M. Then something happens where they don't want to exercise the second option, at which point they would have to pay him the $2M buyout. They are separate options contracts, which can either be exercised or not. If you exercise it, he plays for you for a year at the rate of $25M. If you do not exercise it, you pay a $2M buyout. There would have to be wording that if the first option is not exercised, the second contract cannot be exercised, triggering both buyouts. But I agree with your main point, that in relation to the entire contract, and in relation to what he might be giving up by having those options included in this contract, whether it's $2M or $4M, it's not a lot and as I said earlier, it's easily a justifiable risk for the Brewers to take. There is a chance that he could miss out on a $500M deal because the Brewers exercise their option, and then through injury or underperformance never get that chance again. The Brewers seem to gain a lot more out of the option years than Chourio. I was just saying that he doesn't get nothing. If he underperforms and is "dead money" for the end of his contract, the Brewers still have to pay his buyout at the end.

Yes. I think if you asked every team at this point in the offseason, they'd all say "we'd like to add some more pitching." That said, the Brewers won 92 games mainly on pitching and defense. If we go into the year with a big drop-off in pitching without a big upgrade in offense, then it's safe to say we shouldn't expect to win as many games. Therefore, while the Brewers back of the rotation may not be as bad as some, we need it to be better than most, leading to a little more desperation than we might have if we had a couple more big bats in the order. I expect a Burnes trade to happen sooner rather than later, and we'll have a clearer path to what our rotation may look like at that point. In the unlikely event that it doesn't happen, then we'll really be clear on our direction, and we'd better be spending big on some bats in the "go for it" year before Burnes heads to free agency.

I believe it's $4M total ($2M for each option year). It doesn't do a ton for Chourio, and could cost him a big contract at the end if he falters during that timeframe, but it does guarantee him an additional $4M. That's only 5% of an $80M package, but it's still $4,000,000, which is a lot of money.

Well, sure. If they had signed him for 8/$50M it would have been better for the team than 8/$80M. There was no way Chourio would sign this deal if it would also include two option years at well below projected market value. I'd rather have the deal as is (with the two $25M options/$2M buyouts) than signing the deal without any options. I'm glad the Brewers are committing to $4M in buyouts in order to get him at $25M for each of two years if he's worth it. That's justifiable risk in my opinion.

That sums it up pretty well. While I expect some changes in the rotation prior to opening day through trades, as it stands now I think he's a "swing man" / multi-inning reliever. He may get a couple spot starts, but will mainly play an important role for the team on those days he needs to pitch 2-3 innings out of the 'pen.

...and that's in today's dollars. Chourio is getting that ten years from now.

I look at the options as being a way the Brewers can keep him for the entire 8-year deal. At that point, if they don't think they can afford the $25M, they can trade him to a bigger market team on what is essentially a 2 year/$50M deal, which for a star player in his prime would be very tradable. If he isn't a star player, they can cut bait for $4M.

I think this is probably the way we go, but we'll have to wait it out. The fringe vet guys will want to see first if they can get a starting gig somewhere, and then they'll look to go where they can get some playing time. The back-up for the Brewers will be expected to get less PT than most. That being said, I hope @Joseph Zarr is correct, and one of our non-Quero prospects can win the job. The extra money we would spend on the vet might not be worth the relative upgrade to what we have, especially if Quero is expected to be ready soon.

For the most part I agree, although at this point I think Rea is in position for a rotation spot (Burnes, Peralta, Miley, Houser, Rea). Burnes is likely to be traded, and I hope they bring a good, young starter back in that trade, but that still leaves Rea in the rotation. They'd either need to sign a better FA, or trade (probably an OF) for a starter in order to knock Rea to the 'pen. Gasser and Misiorowski are waiting in the wings. It's possible they open the season with Gasser in the rotation, but I think he'll come up a little later this year, both for service time reasons and to keep his innings down. This showcases why having a couple multi-inning guys makes sense. They're going from Burnes/Woodruff/Peralta at the top of the rotation to Peralta/Miley/Houser. They're going to need some guys in the 'pen who can step in and pick up innings when we have short starts. Honestly, if Burnes is traded, the only real safe spots in the rotation are Peralta and Miley, and you pretty much have to expect Miley will spend some time on the injured list through the season. Ross and Wilson will get plenty of work, and I'd expect Gasser and Misiorowski to make their debuts. It will be interesting to see what % of the Brewers' starts this season will go to our current depth chart rotation (Burnes, Peralta, Miley, Houser and Rea). The over/under is probably 50%.

I like the way it's laid out. He's getting more in the early years than he probably would've received in pre-arby, and then gets less than he'd probably get in his first FA years ($16M & $17M) at the end of the deal. The team will pay a little more in the next few years, when there shouldn't be a payroll crunch, and less later, when some of the other guys will be in their more expensive years, whether they're extended or going through arby. Plus, I'm sure he likes getting paid sooner, so it's a win for both sides. Finally, $25M will be a steal nine years from now if he reaches his potential, and $2M is a pretty small buyout if he doesn't.

That's probably the plan. From MLBtr: "The Brewers probably can’t rely on Ross to suddenly take on a full stater’s workload. With his injuries and opting out of 2020, he’s only twice reached the 80-inning plateau in a major league season, in 2016 and 2021. Even in those two seasons, he was barely over the century mark. Perhaps the Brewers will end up deploying him in something of a swing role or as a multi-inning pitcher out of the bullpen, but that could depend on how he looks in Spring Training or what other moves the club makes before then." Multi-innings relievers are valuable in today's game. For $1.75M this seems to be a decent bet by the Brewers.

I was thinking that same thing. Good to see the projections so high on Black's bat as a rookie. If he can be an above-average MLB hitter at 3B, my dream scenario where the team signs Hoskins and trades Burnes for a young SP could keep us in playoff contention during our "retooling." c To the question on whether Chourio starts in AAA or MLB, I would be shocked if they put him in AAA. This signing is mainly a baseball move, but it is also a marketing opportunity. Signing him to this extension and then starting him in AAA would be a bad look to the fanbase. But mainly, he's the best talent we've got, his service time is now set, and we could get a draft pick, so he'll be on the Brewers from day one.

Very valid point. However, last year with Burnes and Woodruff we had to dig deep into our starting pitching depth. We know we won't have Woodruff, and there's a good chance we won't have Burnes. I'd prefer to fill the hole we know exists rather than keeping extra insurance for a hole that may open. Even if we trade Weimer/Mitchell, we'll still have Yelich, Chourio, Frelick, Mitchell/Weimer, Taylor and Perkins. That's still quite a bit of depth.

I agree, $2M to get out if he isn't performing as expected is a low price to pay for the chance to have him two more years if he's playing well.

FYI, Taylor has 1.4 value, so it's probably better just to hold him as the backup OF who can play every position and hits RH when a lot of the other guys are lefties. He wouldn't bring much back in trade, and would probably only be traded to open up space on the roster. Maybe we get a middle reliever if we're looking for more than a lottery ticket for him.

I know some people have issues with the site, but Baseball Trade Values assigns the following values: Mitchell: 15.2 Frelick: 35.4 Weimer: 15.5 Who you'd prefer to trade should at least partially depend on who it could bring back. Trading Frelick could bring back a difference-making player (think someone like starting pitcher Ricky Tiedeman from the Blue Jays or Kyle Harrison of the Giants), while the other two would probably bring back more lower-end Top 100 guy (think Chase Hampton of the Yankees or Gavin Stone of the Dodgers). Note that I've only listed pitchers, as I think we should trade for pitching and sign a big bat like Hoskins. We can't afford a stud pitcher in free agency. Either of these trades could bolster our rotation with a good, young SP, while dealing from a position of strength. Assuming I could magically make a trade happen, I'd move Burnes for the higher-end pitcher (Tiedeman/Harrison type), and then trade Weimer for one of the Hampton/Stone types. That could give us a potential future ace and mid-rotation guy, both with a lot of team control who should be ready to hit the MLB field right away. If we didn't have Burnes to trade, I may go with the Frelick-for-a-potential-ace trade. I would probably only trade if we can find a young player at a position of need who could help the MLB team in the near-term. Not a Rookie-ball guy, and not a guy already in arby. I know we don't need to trade anyone, but it might make sense to have a pitcher in the rotation for 2023 than extra OF insurance who may lose value if he either isn't needed or can't find himself in AAA.

I like the Tiedemann idea, and was also intrigued by the inclusion of the Phillies and Giants. There aren't many top prospects who are pitchers. The Phillies have Painter, and the Giants have Harrison. Painter is recovering from TJ, so he may not be an option if they're looking to compete this year, but he and Harrison are both MLB ready and are potential top-of-the-rotation arms with team control. If Painter isn't a fit, the Phils also have Mick Abel. Not sure if either of these teams would give up the young pitchers for one year or Burnes, or if Milwaukee would prefer to get a package of players rather than a one-for-one deal, but I would like to see a high-end arm coming back for Burnes.