monty57

That's not entirely accurate. They have spent more from Dec 4 to now, but their overall payroll is less since a lot of salaries were dropped or traded. I'm happy with this offseason and don't care that they cut payroll, but they did cut payroll.

That's not entirely accurate. They have spent more from Dec 4 to now, but their overall payroll is less since a lot of salaries were dropped or traded. I'm happy with this offseason and don't care that they cut payroll, but they did cut payroll.

Stearns has made a lot of signings that by themselves aren't exciting, but make sense when added all together. Holt plays a lot of positions and mashes RHP. As an everyday player, he's okay, but as a guy who starts against righties and sits against lefties, he's very good. We have a number of guys who Counsell can mix and match together to put good lineups on the field everyday with solid reserves to come in for late-game match-ups. Yelich, Hiura, Narvaez, and maybe Urias when he's healthy are the only guys who should be guaranteed "everyday" play. Everyone else should start when the match-up is favorable and sit when it makes sense for someone else to start.

Stearns has made a lot of signings that by themselves aren't exciting, but make sense when added all together. Holt plays a lot of positions and mashes RHP. As an everyday player, he's okay, but as a guy who starts against righties and sits against lefties, he's very good. We have a number of guys who Counsell can mix and match together to put good lineups on the field everyday with solid reserves to come in for late-game match-ups. Yelich, Hiura, Narvaez, and maybe Urias when he's healthy are the only guys who should be guaranteed "everyday" play. Everyone else should start when the match-up is favorable and sit when it makes sense for someone else to start.

I don't think it's incredible damning. After all, losing "staff anchor Kyle Davies" will really hurt us :-) I don't think it's a bad write-up of the Brewers, but I do think the author falls into the group that thinks less money paid out is always a bad thing. For someone scrutinizing cost savings, you would think he would've been harder on the Cubs, who didn't just "not trade a core piece," but instead lost two of their best players (Hamels and Castellanos) to free agency and are still discussing trading away other pieces. That is a lot more cost savings than the Brewers are guilty of.

I think much of last year's rotation going into spring training had a lot of potential, but little experience (high risk/high reward), while this year probably has a little less ceiling, with a higher floor (lower risk/lower reward). Knock on wood, but I don't think anyone will completely implode, but we probably won't have anyone step up and be a "true ace" starter. We do still have Burnes, Peralta, and others who have the potential to be better than average MLB starters. They'll just be in AAA or the bullpen "proving themselves." Just my feelings here, but I think Woodruff will be solid if he stays healthy, Lauer will be a decent middle-of-the-rotation guy, and Anderson will be this year's Miley as he continues to throw more cutters. Lindblom and Houser are my wildcards. I think Lindblom will eat up a lot of innings, but I think he has the greatest variance (could be surprisingly good, or not-so-good). I really hope Houser builds on last year and develops into a solid middle-of-the-rotation guy, but I think he may end up in the pen. I think that if Burnes starts the year in AAA and re-builds his confidence, he can be the guy who will come up and give us a boost mid-season and become a solid MLB starter.

Urias had a slow start to his MLB career, I'll give you that, but he had a far superior minor league career, and was ranked the #31 prospect in all of baseball by BA and #16 by MLB.com, while Rengifo was the Angels #10 rated prospect. I don't believe he made any "top 100" lists, but I'm not a BA subscriber, so please correct me if I'm wrong. That .830 OPS vs .765 OPS over thousands of PA is significant. Prospects do fail, and not every MLB player was a top-ranked prospect, but at this point in time, I don't think they're comparable value-wise unless you put a much heavier weighting on Urias' 302 MLB PA than his thousands of MiLB PA. Rengifo didn't have a good rookie year either, with 406 PA, .238 avg / .321 OBP / .364 SLG / .685 OPS, so it's not like he had a breakout campaign that shot his value up. Urias is a top prospect who struggled in his first taste of the majors. Rengifo is a young guy with some minor league success who will be given a shot to prove himself as long as he's playing at league minimum. Most people here were happy that we were able to get Urias for Grisham. I'd guess that people would have been upset if we had traded Grisham for Rengifo.

No rumor, it just looks like the Dodgers are trying to cut some payroll and need to trim some 40-man space. If they're going to give away talent to make that happen, it might be nice if the Brewers could benefit. Really, it's probably nothing more than something to fill the dead air until we start hearing news out of spring training :-)

I don't think the Cubs would trade him here, and I don't want to give up the future for a two year "window," but the always fun baseballtradevalues.com has his median value at 38.70. Turang (20.6) and Lutz (14.7) would come close, and you could throw in a Garcia, Rodriguez, Ashby, or Ray to finalize the deal if the Cubs were looking to rebuild with an "our MVP player for a group of prospects" deal. Hader (39.7) is pretty close to a straight-up deal, so WTP's idea of him going to the Dodgers then to the Brewers isn't that far-fetched from a value standpoint.

That's possible, but it's never safe to assume anything. There are a lot of people who drive fancy cars and live in big houses that end up in bankruptcy. I didn't like it when Attanasio used to interfere in baseball decisions, signing a slew of over-the-hill pitchers, but I've never doubted his mind for money. He seems to have realized that he hired the GM to make the baseball decisions, so if the Brewers do make a move for Stripling/Pederson, I will assume that Stearns thinks it will really help the team on the field and Attanasio feels it will not hurt them financially.

Luis Urias would be about the closest I can see in comparison to age, levels reached and MLB experience. After that no one is even close. ... If it takes Urias to get these two, you're looking at the Medical issues and waiting in to the season? So let's turn this all upside down and bring the trade idea around to Hader for these 2 plus. Thankfully, talent is more important than age, levels reached, and MLB experience. Rengifro and Urias are not at all comparable talent-wise. Rengifro is likely a guy who will have value as long as he's inexpensive, while Urias is one of the highest-rated prospects in the game, so Urias would not even be in the discussions in this trade. If the Dodgers wanted someone for the 26-man, it would probably take Houser or Peralta as we don't have position players who match Rengifro's value. If they are looking at minor leaguers, it'd be more like Feliciano, Eduardo Garcia, or Carlos Rodriguez with some other pieces thrown in to even things out. The Dodgers seem to be trying to cut payroll to below the "cap" level while trimming the 40-man. If they are willing to take less value back in order to reach these goals, as it appear from the proposed Angels deal, then that sounds like a value deal right up Stearns' alley. A big question is the Brewers' financial/budget situation. Did the Brewers go into the offseason with a goal of cutting payroll to the current level, or did it just occur with the "value deals" available? If they felt the need to cut to the current level, would Attanasio be willing to add just under $10M to this year's payroll to make this deal happen? He's been willing to go over budget in the past for what he thought were meaningful upgrades to the team, so would this return be meaningful enough for him to spend the money? Disregarding money, this seems like a steal. If you can make it budget-wise, make the deal and let the playing-time questions sort themselves out. As others have said, other than Yelich, Hiura, and probably Urias when he's healthy, no one on the roster should be guaranteed "everyday player" status.

If the Dodgers are giving up a lot of value in Stripling and Pederson just to get under the "cap," and if the Brewers could afford another $9.85M, then they should at least look at this, although I don't know what we'd trade them. Rengifro is young and MLB ready. We don't have a lot of those guys around these days. I guess if we're getting Stripling back, we could afford to give up someone like Houser, who (according to baseballtradevalues.com) is around the value of Rengifro. Otherwise, maybe Feliciano and a guy in the low minors?? Attanasio might be willing to raise the budget if he thinks he's getting a huge value that could really help the team. But, I don't know if the Dodgers would be as willing to make this type of trade to the Brewers, who may in turn be the team that knocks them out of the playoffs. Easier to make the trade to an AL team that hasn't been good in recent years.

If the Cubs or Cardinals went out and did something, I'd be more concerned. Posters have shown that this year's Brewer team "on paper" should be around the talent level of last year. Meanwhile, the Cubs have done little and are trying to pull off a late trade of their best player to get under the luxury tax "cap," and the Cardinals have lost Ozuna and their most significant move was trading Martinez for Liberatore, who spent last year in A ball. If the Cubs don't trade Bryant, and they add other players to fill hole, and if the Cardinals actually do pull off a trade to improve their team, then I think we can lament the many moves the Brewers did this offseason. Until then, the Reds are the only team to improve this offseason. The Pirates are in rebuild, and the Cards and Cubs should be less talented then they were in 2019, while the Brewers should be around even talent-wise to last year. I know the Brewers have questions, but the other teams in the division have just as many.

That's possible, but if they're over by $0.01 then they would be in year two of the cycle if they wanted to go over for a signing next offseason, pushing their taxes much higher. Friedman has done a good job of being around $1-2M under the "cap" for the past two years, so I'd guess that he's done the math and will end up just under it once again.

What am i missing here? Pederson is good and Stripling has been a valuable swing starter/reliever, along with not being a free agent until 2023. Unless the Dodgers get a nice prospect or two along with Rengifo, the return seems light. As others have mentioned, this is a way to stay under the luxury tax. Cot's puts them around $3M under after these recent moves, which gives them a little flexibility while not paying any luxury tax and allowing them to go over if needed in future years without paying exorbitant taxes. This also sends some guys that may not have big roles on the team away and bolsters their farm. This seems to be a foreign concept to some fans, but the reason Friedman's teams (Tampa and now LA) always have good MLB teams and good farms is at least to some degree because he is willing to trade away major leaguers for prospects, even when the team is playoff caliber. He can stay under the luxury tax because he always has good pre-arby guys on the roster. He always has good pre-arby guys on the roster because he maintains a good farm, which in large part is because he is willing to make trades like this. I'm glad the Brewers have Stearns, because big markets are getting smarter about their investments. Without a smart/shrewd GM of our own, we'd have no chance.

It's all crap. https://theathletic.com/1587470/2020/02/06/rosenthal-three-team-mookie-betts-trade-held-up-may-be-adjusted-over-medical-review/ From the article: "The Red Sox, after viewing the medical records of Twins right-hander Brusdar Graterol, projected him more as a reliever than as a starter, according to sources involved with the discussions." How does a pitcher's medical record show that he's more likely to be future reliever rather than a starter? Wouldn't that come from a scouting report? Do the Red Sox no longer have scouts? There is nothing out there that is a secret about Graterol. Graterol had Tommy John surgery in the past, and he missed two months of this last season with a shoulder impingement but was back on the mound in September throwing 101 MPH. Now how would his medical record indicate he's a reliever, not a starter? If his arm is about to fall off, wouldn't that mean that he cannot pitch at all? Note the Red Sox are not saying they don't want Gratesol because of his past injuries (widely known) or because he's too fat (which a second grader can figure out by looking at the height/weight measurement). The big key in this is that they aren't saying they don't want Graterol, which really should be the case if they have a significant concern with his medicals. What they are saying is they want more, with some flimsy excuse about the medicals saying he's a starter and not a reliever, which really doesn't make any sense at all. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, if the Red Sox try to bully the Dodgers or the Twins for another prospect/player. Or if the Red Sox and Dodgers gang up and try to bully the Twins out of another prospect. Personally, if I were the Twins, I couldn't walk away from this trade fast enough. We'll see if the Dodgers pony up more? If I were them, I'd say I'd throw in another fringe prospect but would also demand the Dodgers send an additional 6 million to pay for even more of Price's bad contract (on top of all the money they are already shipping to LA). Yeah, if the deal was signed, then the Red Sox only have a case if there was information they weren't given prior to signing that has surfaced after the deal was signed. If they didn't thoroughly review the medicals before signing, that's their problem. If the deal is not yet signed, then they're just using this as a bargaining chip, which is risky because if the Twins back out the deal probably doesn't get done and Boston's on the hook for a lot of money.

Here's the rules from the MLB site regarding the penalty for exceeding the luxury tax level: A club exceeding the Competitive Balance Tax threshold for the first time must pay a 20 percent tax on all overages. A club exceeding the threshold for a second consecutive season will see that figure rise to 30 percent, and three or more straight seasons of exceeding the threshold comes with a 50 percent luxury tax. If a club dips below the luxury tax threshold for a season, the penalty level is reset. So, a club that exceeds the threshold for two straight seasons but then drops below that level would be back at 20 percent the next time it exceeds the threshold. Clubs that exceed the threshold by $20 million to $40 million are also subject to a 12 percent surtax. Meanwhile, those who exceed it by more than $40 million are taxed at a 42.5 percent rate the first time and a 45 percent rate if they exceed it by more than $40 million again the following year(s). Beginning in 2018, clubs that are $40 million or more above the threshold shall have their highest selection in the next Rule 4 Draft moved back 10 places unless the pick falls in the top six. In that case, the team will have its second-highest selection moved back 10 places instead. The rules were made stricter in 2018, and since then teams have been unwilling to go too far over the "cap," or stay over for more than two years. If the Red Sox hadn't done a deal like this, they would have been paying 50% tax plus a 12-45% surcharge on all overages. That's just a "tax," they don't get an extra player for that $20M or so they'd be paying. They got a good young OF back, and a potentially good pitcher back. Verdugo probably won't be as good as Betts this year, but for the roughly $63M they're saving this year in salary and luxury tax, I'd take the downgrade, plus they get him for four more years after this year plus whatever Graterol adds, and they get to reset the luxury tax to spend big next offseason. I think getting as much as they did is a big win for the Red Sox. Meanwhile, even after this trade Cot's is estimating that the Dodgers will still be about $3M under the luxury tax level and they got to keep their top prospects while they should be hands down the best NL team "on paper" going into the season. Friedman is a good GM.

This could be interesting. I don't think anyone here will doubt that if Knebel is back to 100%, the Brewers' best bullpen has Knebel closing allowing Hader to play the role he had in 2018. Unfortunately, the arbitration system is still archaic, and pays more money to relievers who rack up saves. That means Hader will not be happy if he gets moved back to the position where he provides the most value, as it could cost him millions of dollars. When he got placed in the bullpen, Hader was nonchalant, and said something like "I don't care where I pitch, as long as I'm pitching." I hope he keeps this attitude if he gets moved off the closer role.

You're kind of proving that Stearns is looking for and making the moves you're asking for. There is a limit to the supply of good, cheap talent, so the fact that he's not going further could mean that guys you're asking for aren't out there. That's what I meant by adding "meh" or "mediocre" guys... Stearns is already adding the guys he wants. If he added Phelps but not another veteran reliever there's a reason for it, and that reason is probably that he doesn't like the available options more than he likes what he already has when all things are considered (price, talent, etc.). As to the salary, we were only at that high of number last year because Moose and Grandal became available. No one should expect the Brewers to remain at that level. Basically, the blue collar family can eat at the fancy restaurant for special occasions, but normally they have to go Culver's. If they succumb to the peer pressure and go to the fancy restaurant too much, they won't be able to pay their mortgage and they'll lose their house.

TJ77, If we could afford "proven" at every position, I'd be fine with that, but "proven" costs money. Someone in the Phelps thread posited that with the expected bonuses, we're around $107M right now. We went over budget last year, and I don't think Attanasio wants to do that again, at least not to add "meh" veterans to the roster. Maybe if a Grandal-type deal came up, but not for some guy who may or may not be better than what we already have. Stearns has added stopgap veterans to cover most of our holes, and he knows the players in the system better than anyone. Maybe he likes some of his guys at league minimum more than he likes what's out there on the proverbial trash heap. Maybe in his mind those players have "earned it," and that's why he's not signing someone to block them. Unless we can get something meaningful (like the Moose and Grandal deals last year), I don't want them to spend over budget to get a reclamation project to fill space until one of the non-star prospects "proves" he's the better option. That could lead to bad things, including not having the capital to pull off mid-season moves when something like your above-stated "what if" scenarios play out. In large part I agree with you, and you state your case well. I guess I'm just saying that we can't afford to spend money on mediocrity just because that mediocrity has MLB service time.

Barring injury, I'd guess that if Suter (or less likely Peralta) wins a spot in the rotation out of spring training, it means that Houser is in the 'pen.

Yeah, Baker has won a lot of games, but doesn't seem to fit with Houston's approach, or at least the approach they have had that has built a perennial powerhouse.

Good post TJ77, but a small market like the Brewers does need to give kids chances, even when they are "trying to win." Hindsight 20/20, we obviously went too far last year trying to put three rookies in the opening day rotation, but there should be a happy medium between there and "can't trust a rookie." Ideally, I'd like to see a few rookies break in every year. This means that there will always be a decent number of pre-arby guys on the roster, which allows us to afford some high-priced guys. When someone's playing for league minimum, they don't have to be really good to be valuable. As we saw this offseason, once they hit arby and start to become expensive, they can be jettisoned and replaced once their price exceeds their production. Middle relievers and bench/utility guys are the "easy" positions to fill with guys who aren't top prospects, but can play at the MLB level for league minimum. No one should hand these guys a set-up or closer role, but if you have a fairly solid back of the bullpen, I'm fine giving a middle reliever spot to someone who is unproven at the MLB level. Very few prospects will be like Hiura, who can step in from day one and be a star, but there is room for lesser prospects... at least as long as the pre-arby system remains set up the way it is. I get that we'd all like stars (or at least "proven") at every position, but if paying a couple guys $550,000 to be decent back-ups allows us to give eight figure salaries to some of our good players, there's value there. "Proven" costs money, and isn't always better than "unproven."

If Burnes gets it together, I hope he never spends another inning in the bullpen. He has the potential to join Woodruff at the top of the rotation.

Yeah, he's been better against righties. During that same span: 2016 ERA 2.28, FIP 2.80, xFIP 3.15, K/9 11.84, BB/9 3.95, ERA- 58 2017 ERA 3.40, FIP 3.55, xFIP 3.76, k/9 10.02, B/9 4.20, ERA- 82 2018 DNP 2019 ERA 3.41, FIP 4.58, xFIP 5.01, K/9 9.44, B/9 4.46, ERA- 76 Not bad 2019, and hopefully a year after injury he can bring the FIP down some. Brewers' defense probably won't save him :-)