monty57

Probably, but MLBtr has him estimated at 2 years/$36M. That fits in nicely to the period where our young guys are still pre-arby, and we won't have much money on the books. Sign him and trade Burnes (netting at least one MLB-ready prospect), and we're set to be competitive as soon as this year. Follow the Chourio extension with extensions to some of the other young guys, and the period of to remain competitive extends for the next 5-10 years. I guess since Atlanta stole the Braves from us, we can steal their winning strategy from them.

I don't want to be the "start talking about trading him before the ink's even dry" guy, but if the options are too pricey for the Brewers, they will still allow the Brewers to hold him for the entire eight-year contract, and then trade him for a haul to a team that would love to pay him for those two years. In essence, they effectively give the Brewers more time with him on the roster whether they are the ones who exercise the options or it's someone else.

We'll see how Murphy handles things. Counsell seemed to like breaking young guys in further down in the order. They've got a lot of "bat to ball" guys in the lineup which is great to see as we should have a good team OBP this year. Mitchell and Chourio project to have a bit of pop in their bat, so maybe they end up middle of the order, but the lineup could go a lot of ways. I'm still holding out hope that they bring in a power bat like Hoskins to hit behind the high-OBP/good speed guys.

...and this is a very good problem to have. The Brewers' defense had as much to do with their 92 wins as anything, and an OF of Mitchell, Frelick, Chourio (mix and match which one plays where) could be the best defensive OF in baseball. Yelich's defense is so far below the other guys, it seems that his time in the OF will have to be limited going forward. I really hope they're working him out at 1B this offseason.

I would be surprised if he was not standing in the MLB outfield on opening day. The rest of the OF will be figured out around him.

So, if Soto was paid $83M for his "control" years, the Brewers get eight years for less money. That extra year+ of "free" service is the price Chourio accepted in order to get an $80M guarantee from the team. Even though I know there's risk to the team, I'm very excited about this signing, and I hope it leads some of the other young guys to extend as well. When Burnes is traded, we'll have more young talent, and a lot of room in payroll to add FAs to fill holes, so we can "retool" on the fly while still remaining competitive. I've always loved early extensions, so this has me happy and optimistic as we head into the meat of the offseason.

Agree, although it has seemed that the Brewers are higher on Mitchell than Frelick. If one is traded, I hope it's Taylor. If it's Mitchell or Frelick, they'd better get a similar value/control player back at a different position, but what's the likelihood of that lining up?

I kind of skipped over this when I first read through, and I think it's a pretty valid point. If Chourio is signed to a deal, he is going to be our opening day CF, and is not going to spend any more time in the minors. We need corner infielders and pitchers, and we have a excess OF. I don't think Yelich is tradeable, but even if he is moved to 1B or relegated to DH, it would still seem that one or two of Taylor, Weimer, Frelick or Mitchell could be traded this offseason. If it's Frelick or Mitchell, we'd better get a lot back in return. It's not definite, as Weimer could start the year in AAA, but it's a definite possibility, and could help us shore up a hole elsewhere in the roster.

Well, it should give them a discount on those years, and it gives them cost certainty. The discount is as big of a reason to do the deal as getting extra years of service time. I'm all for buying out some free agent years, but even a deal that only covered the years they already have him would have value as long as there's a discount. For example, someone earlier posted that Soto will cost something like $80M for his "control" years. If they could sign Chourio to a $70M deal that only covers his "control" years, that would have value... presumably $10M worth, but that would depend on how he performs and how the market inflates over the next half-decade. The way "sports inflation" is going, what we'd pay him in his arby years under any contract he signs now will probably look cheap compared to what he'd get if we don't sign him and he plays up to expectation. As to "certainty," the World Series is in October and arbitration hearings aren't until mid-February. It's hard to know how much you have to spend in free agency if you don't know what your own guys cost. If you had everyone under contract (no arby guys), you'd know exactly how much you had to spend from day one of free agency, so you could get a jump on things. This is far from the biggest reason for doing the deal, but it is a benefit.

I still think Burnes is traded. Locking up Chourio is a long-term commitment, so the only effect it should have on this year is that he will probably be on the opening day roster instead of sitting in AAA for service time reasons. Chourio is a big part of the reason the team could be competitive for the next decade. Trading Burnes should bring back more pieces that will help over that time frame. I think we'll get a good MLB-ready prospect, and a few guys who will still spend some time in the minors. It will also free up some cash the will hopefully be used to shore up some positions of need.

That a perfectly fair take. Every move a team or player makes has risks. For a small revenue team like the Brewers, I personally prefer the risk associated with signing early extensions to player who will sign them, as it gives the team the chance to get them at a discounted rate. Of course some will not work out, but I think their success will be better building their core around this strategy than it would be trying to build around free agency or extensions to players who are a year or so away from free agency. Because of that, I'm excited to see this news (disclaimer that I don't know the numbers they're talking, and I may not be excited when I see them). I also hope that this leads some of the other good, young players to follow suit, and we can have a stable of good, young talent locked up for years to come.

Think of it like insurance and transferring risk. The longer you wait, the more expensive it gets. The Brewers should only do long-term extensions to pre-arby guys (or in this case minor leaguers) if they get a significant discount to what the player should be expected to receive by going year-to-year. Think of the discount as the premium the player pays in order to get the "insurance" of a guaranteed contract. If there is no discount, then the team should just go year-to-year. Many players will not accept taking this discount, but some will forego some future earnings for the large guarantee. The ones who accept it will be part of the core longer, while the ones who don't accept it will be traded sooner. The Brewers' current example is that Burnes needs to be traded now, while Peralta (who accepted an early extension) will still be a Brewer. One could argue that Peralta loses out vs. Burnes, but then we look at Woodruff, who might be wishing that he had signed for more guaranteed money a few years ago. There is risk to any move a team makes. I like extending pre-abry guys to long-term, discounted deals. I dislike extending guys who have limited team control remaining, as these are basically expensive free agent deals. The former allows the team to get players for a discount, while the latter does not. I guess it just comes down to what type of risk the team is comfortable with, and what it costs.

It's about paying under market value. Free agents by nature are paid market value. The structure of the pre-arby/arby system allows teams to get players under market value. Doing extensions early gives certainty to the players, and for that they accept less than they would otherwise expect to get through their pre-arby/arby/free agency years. Smaller revenue teams can never hope to compete by getting their stars through free agency. They need to get their core players their farm or by trading for young, cost-controlled players. Free agency should only be used to fill in the gaps, and generally only be for one or two year deals. This also applies to offering extensions late in the "control years," like they did with Yelich. Once the player is already set for life, and close to free agency, they no longer have to accept a significant discount for the guarantee, so later-term extensions are basically free agent deals. Again, small revenue teams can't afford to build like this. I hope they get the Chourio deal done, but only if it buys out some free agency years. Then, I hope they are able to work out some extensions with some of the other pre-arby guys like Contreras, Mitchell, Frelick, etc. That will lock up a nice core for the foreseeable future, they can trade Burnes for more young talent, and they can fill in the holes with a couple of free agent signings.

He still has one pre-arby year left, and should only get $1-2M for that. That brings the average way down, and makes it very difficult to get the average per year to the level you’re stating with only three FA years unless you think he’s a $30M player. I had $1 / $4 / $8 / $11 / $15 / $16 / $17. That gets you to 7/$72. If you agree with the free agent years of 15/16/17, and say his arby 2 should be at $10 (I had $8) and arby 3 at $11, which is what I had, you seem to be at 7/$74. His brother is a good comp, and he got $17.5M per free agent year (no arby or pre-arby years in his deal). If you change my three FA years to $17.5, you’re only adding $4.5M. Some adjustments can be made to the arby years to get it over $80 for seven years, but if he demands more than $100M, it would be for eight years (like Acuna) and with another high-priced FA year, you could possibly get to around $100M. But this is a congrats to Contreras thread. He had a great year, I’m extremely happy we traded for him, and I’d love to get him extended.

He still has a year of pre-arby and three arby years. If he’s worth $15-$17 on the open market, it would break down something like: $1M / $4M / $8M / $11M / $15M / $16M / $17M. Even if he’s worth $20M on the open market, I don’t see him averaging $15-$17M a year on a 7-year deal with four of those years being pre-arby/arby. Burnes is going to sign a monster deal after next season, and he’s only projected to make around $16M in his final arby year. A team generally only signs an early extension if they get some discount vs what the player would expect from going year-to-year, so I don’t think Lloyd’s 7/$80 is too out of line, and may be a bit high. Something like $1M / $5 / $9 / $12 /$16 / $18 / $19 would be a pretty tempting offer for Contrares. I’d say it’s probably an overpay since his brother signed a FA deal (no arby/pre-arby) for 5/$87.5.

Thanks for compiling the list. I think most of these guys will hold out to see if they can land a starting gig, as they'll know that with the Brewers they'll see a lot of bench time. But, it's nice to know that there should be a decent, not-too-expensive option available to fill this spot on the roster.

Hello everyone. Long-time poster here who's taken about a year off to deal with other things going on in life. Anyhow, I've been looking over posts for the past few days, and there seems to be a belief that the Brewers are going to drastically cut payroll this year. Have they stated this, or is this just the overriding opinion on the site? It seems likely that they'll trade Burnes, and they've already let Woodruff go, so it seems to me like they should have a lot (for the Brewers) of money to play with this offseason. The only eight-figure salaries on the roster are Yelich and Adames, so they could do something like sign Hoskins (MLBtr estimate 2 year / $36M) and a $10-$15M pitcher like Montas, Manea, Lorenzen, Martinez, or Clevinger and still be under the '21 and '22 opening day payrolls. I haven't paid nearly as much attention to the team as I normally do, but if they feel that they could contend, they'll probably put out an opening day payroll in the $100M-$110M range. Right now, assuming a Burnes trade, they're sub-$80M. So, unless I missed the memo that they're "tanking" this season, I expect some singings this offseason. The past few years, they had guys going through arby raises, which limited their ability to spend. They don't have that now, so it'll be a different playbook this offseason. I think they'll get at least one MLB-ready prospect back in the Burnes trade (in addition to some other good young talent), so they need to know what holes are going to be filled in the inevitable Burnes trade, and then they'll build from there.

My bad. Got '18 and '11 mixed up. I'm getting old... I was actually at one of those Cardinal games.

It was a while ago, so my memory might be off, but I seem to remember the team offering him an extension (or at least a free agent contract) but like the Sabathia offer, everyone knew it wasn't going to be as big as he'd get elsewhere. The only "complaint" I remember from Prince was in his final pre-arby year, where he wanted more than the Brewers were offering, so they didn't come to an agreement and the Brewers ended up renewing his contract for something like $900k citing a formula they used that showed that was what his final pre-arby year was worth. I think it was kind of a foregone conclusion from there that he was going to play to free agency and leave. They signed the two-year deal you mentioned, but that just gave arbitration certainty, and didn't buy out any free agency years. Melvin "shopped" him prior to his final season, but was asking for a packaged headlined by two MLB pitchers in return, which at the time I figured was ridiculous as no team who was competing for the playoffs (the only teams that would trade for a guy with one season remaining) would give up two of their MLB starters. When Melvin couldn't find a trade partner, he changed gears and traded for Grienke and Marcum to go for it in Prince's last season. They had a solid team and made it to the NLCS, where they were beat out by the Dodgers, with the final crushing defeat happening on my birthday. My kids still remind me of it. Prince always had a "I'm going to prove to the world why I'm worth it" attitude. I recall him referencing the Moneyball "Prince was the one player who was too fat for even Beane and the A's" line as motivation.

So I can't say that due to recent events I like players like Woodruff, Adames, Williams, and Urias more than Burnes, but you can say that the owner, GM, scouts, etc. aren't part of the team? Were the Brewers not the Brewers ten years ago when we had virtually the same ownership group, but completely different players? I just don't like some of the things Burnes has done this offseason, I don't hate him personally or take issue against all players because one guy said something. Based on the last sentence of yours that I quoted, I think your issues are far deeper.

You're right, it's a mark against all the star American pitchers who declined their invitations, and Burnes is one of them. Whether it was a group decision or just a coincidence, the American starters chose not to play, while all other players were honored to be selected to play for their countries. But again, you're focusing really, really heavily on this one and ignoring the other, more pertinent things that have me calling him a whiner. None of the other American pitchers who declined their invitations also publicly badmouthed their team after a routine arby hearing, went out of their way to complain about the new rules, or tried to make their team look bad for their poor efforts at retaining him and then went out and signed the one agent known for always going after the top-dollar instead of negotiating early extensions. It's the series of events that lead me to say "liking him less and less as the offseason progresses." Everyone who has worked has had co-workers who do their job without complaint and co-workers who complain about everything... no one likes the co-workers who complain about everything, and they're never good for workplace morale. Burnes is showing himself to be a whiner, and seems to epitomize the "pampered athlete." He can pitch, so I hope he does that well for one more year before he's traded. After that, I don't really care what he does.

Wonderful thing about this is that you and I can disagree about what players we like over others. "We" should care about what matters to each of us individually. I much prefer the way Woodruff and Adames are going about their contract situation than the way Burnes is acting. I liked watching Urias tear it up in the WBC, and hearing Adames saying that representing his country in the WBC was right up there with the World Series for him. I prefer players and managers who keep closed door meetings closed. Other fans may like hearing players make private conversations public. All I said is that I've liked him less and less as the offseason has went on. I added that I hope he pitches well so that he helps the Brewers, but that I won't miss the complaining when he's gone. I've always expected him to be traded prior to free agency. If my comments have upset you, then I think it's safe to say that Burnes' comments have upset some of his teammates, and could be causing some dissent in the clubhouse, which is why I commented that it could hurt morale. But, it's really not worth arguing over. I don't like him as much as I did prior to this offseason. You may like him more. I'm okay with that.

Williams didn't. The Cardinals' pitchers didn't. But that was only one of the reasons I said I'm liking him less and less as the offseason goes on. I have no problem with players going year-to-year and trying to make the most possible money. Take Prince Fielder for instance. He continued to play hard and remained a team leader. He never badmouthed the team, never complained, just went out and played hard. Then he signed a monster deal with another team, and I think everyone still remembers him fondly even though he left for more money. In arby, every other Brewer (including the other stars Woodruff and Adames) signed instead of going to a hearing. It's Burnes' choice to go to the hearing, and he knew what to expect but he still chose to publicly complain and badmouth the team after the hearing. A lot of players have been through arby hearings. Some win, some lose, and everyone says it's a tough process, but I don't recall anyone ever throwing a fit about it like he did. Then he did an interview to complain about the pitch clock. Not a big deal in an of itself, but he's showing himself to be quite the whiner. Every player is dealing with the new rules and most other players aren't complaining to reporters about them. Just shut up, pitch the ball and you'll be one of the highest paid people on the planet. Contract-wise, Woodruff and Adames are going through the same thing he is at the same time. Neither is complaining. Frelick knows that he should be on the opening day roster, but he went out at the start of spring and said he expects to start the season in the minors, where he'll work hard on things to make it to the majors. Of course he knows that it's likely being done to cost him a year of free agency, and he's better than whatever AAAA stop-gap they put out there for a few weeks, but still no complaining. The players and their agents know the rules. Most of them keep the complaints in-house. A very small subset choose to complain publicly. Burnes and Lauer appear to be leading the charge in that department. Maybe McCalvy is just really good at his getting players to "speak their minds," maybe they think they'll have something to gain by it, but it doesn't seem to me that it's good for anything, especially team morale. Team leaders don't run to reporters to air grievances. Maybe the team just needs to sit down and watch Bull Durham.

I'm liking Burnes less and less as this offseason progresses. He complained about arbitration when his hearing wasn't any different than every other player who goes through that process; he complained about the pitch clock, when every player is in the same situation and very few are publicly whining; he turned down an invitation to play for Team USA in the WBC because it could hurt his chance for a big payday while other players (including his Brewer teammates) gushed about how great an experience it was; and now he's signing with Boras. I hope he pitches well this year because it will help the Brewers and help get a better return when he's traded. I won't shed a tear when he and Lauer are no longer on the roster complaining about everything, and the team can go back to playing baseball without the drama.

The Brewers will need "that extra win" in the future, too. What are the odds that the prospect in question will provide more value in the full year of service gained down the road over the 2-3 weeks spent in the minors this season? The Brewers can offer extensions to anyone they wish. The extension will be significantly less expensive it the team has an additional year of team control. They wouldn't be "mitigating" anything, as they would be paying tens of millions more in extensions for their prospects than they would if they all had that extra year of control. That's notwithstanding that many of them wouldn't take the extension and would simply hit free agency a year earlier. If one of the prospects wants to sign the extension now, then fine, put him on the opening day roster. If they haven't signed the extension by opening day, send them down for a few weeks. Putting the top prospects out there on opening day instead of calling them up after a few weeks is extreme short-term thinking, and it would cost the Brewers a lot of money and wins in the future. All teams do this because it's the smart thing to do. It's in the CBA and gives the team an extra year of control, so take advantage of it.