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.

I think this is a good possibility. In addition to Anderson acting as a backup OF, if Winker's surgery worked, he could be a better defender than he's shown the past couple seasons so he could see more time on the field than we're all thinking. Then you're looking at whether it makes more sense to keep someone like Toro or Brosseau over someone like Naquin, and even whether we keep someone like Hiura who could DH while Winker is in the OF. Yelich, Mitchell, Winker in the OF with Hiura at DH would be a nice "vs RHP" mix. There really are a lot of directions the team could go, and I think they'll lean towards keeping the prospects (other than Mitchell) down for a while for service time/Super 2 reasons.

I think that a lot depends on how Anderson performs. My guess (barring injuries) is that Anderson will start at 3B, with Urias moving to 2B. Turang will likely start in AAA. If Anderson falters, Turang will only be in AAA long enough to save service time. If Anderson plays like he did early in his career, then there will be no rush to bring Turang up. He's the natural replacement for Adames when he is likely traded next offseason, so saving Turang's service time for when he's our starting SS will benefit the team long-term. Toro was a nice pickup, as he can play all over the field, and he still has enough "prospect luster" left that maybe, just maybe he could break out. However, he's far enough along that you don't mind burning through his service time as a bench player. If he gets hot, he could earn himself some additional playing time, but as I started this post, if Anderson falters it will likely be Turang who takes over as an everyday player. But, the spring will be interesting, as several different scenarios could play out. Anderson could be used more than expected as a corner OF, opening more time at 3B. Hiura is an enigma, as they didn't play him last year when he was seemingly the best option vs RHP, so why did they sign him to a seven-figure salary? Post-surgery, can Winker play better defense, freeing up the DH spot more often than we expect? Will they hold onto Brosseau as a "lefty killer," taking up one of the spots Toro/Turang are fighting for? All-in-all, it' good to have depth, and it's good to have players with positional flexibility. It opens up a lot of options.

This showcases why depth in starting pitching is so important. When Miley was signed, many (myself included) started wondering which of the starters would be traded, and what they would get in return. Others cautioned that any move would wait until at least mid-March, as "these things have a way of working themselves out." Those posters are proving to be correct. Without the Miley signing, we would be relying on Houser to figure things out, and any additional injury would have us wondering if someone like Gasser or Small were ready for the majors. Hopefully, we will stay injury-free for the remainder of spring training, but Houser is a better "fall back plan" than most teams have if someone else goes down and he needs to start the season in the rotation. Signing Miley and holding onto his depth has to go down as another smart move by Arnold who quietly has had a pretty good off-season. Now we just have to hope that Ashby's "arm fatigue" is nothing serious or permanent, and he's back in the mix sooner rather than later. We will need his services, and the further we get from spring training, the less able Houser will be to step into the rotation without an extended period of "stretching him out."

This is pretty much how I feel. I mentioned this in the Urias thread, so I'll just do a quick recap here. If (as I expect) Burnes, Woodruff and Adames are all traded, then we should have a couple year period with a lot of pre-arby guys on the roster and a low payroll. It could make sense (and fit into the payroll) to extend some of our "second tier" guys for a couple of extra years. They'd play an important role in helping the team remain competitive and would be off the books when the current prospects start to get expensive in arby. If price is around the same, I would much prefer extending Urias or Lauer than Tellez. Lauer because we will need five starting pitchers and he's proven to be an effective one. Urias because he matched Tellez's 110 wRC+ while playing multiple positions that are all harder than first base. So, if we have payroll room to extend all three, then go ahead and do it. If not, then Tellez is the first on the chopping block. I would add an asterisk to this. Lauer's complaint was that the team wasn't doing everything they could to win now, so he probably wouldn't want to extend with a team who was trading away Burnes, Woodruff, and Adames and going with a bunch of pre-arby guys.

I've felt that the obvious choice all along was to trade Burnes prior to free agency. Same holds true with Woodruff and Adames. That one went through the arbitration process and got upset with what he heard, while the other two signed deals so they didn't have to go through arbitration doesn't change anything in that regard.

We all know the team has some major personnel decisions to make in the near future. As it stands now, Urias' team control goes through 2025, which is his 4th arby year. He's set to make $4.7M this year (year two arby), so I think it'd take more than the 4 year/$25M contract proposed in the article, but it wouldn't break the bank. In 2026, the only players from the current team who will still be around are Yelich (through '28 + '29 option), Ashby (through '27 w /'28 & '29 options), Toro (final arby year in '26), and our pre-arby guys which are pretty much Taylor, Mitchell, Contreras and some role players. Guys who could debut this year (Frelick, Turang, Wiemer, Chourio) could hit arby in '26 or '27, depending on when they're brought up. Depending on what other decisions are made, that could give us a fairly inexpensive lineup for a year or two. Someone like Urias could give us a decent veteran option for the '26 and '27 seasons when he should be able to fit into the budget while the current prospects are making their way through pre-arby and into their early arby years. Of course, I would like to see them extend as many of the current top prospects as possible early on, in which case Urias would be a nice complementary piece to the guys who will be our core players for most of the next decade. My one concern with extending him is that he was underperforming until Adames joined the team. I recall an article stating that he prefers to kind of play in the shadows rather than being the center of attention, and Adames' personality took the spotlight off of Luis. I have no idea how Urias' play will be effected when Adames is gone, which could be after this season. The team has a lot more insight into that than any of us ever will.

I consider extensions once a guy's into his arby years akin to signing free agents, as you aren't going to get too much of a discount for the free agent years. Therefore, I think you have to ask "if this guy was a free agent, would we realistically be going after him?" For guys like Burnes and Woodruff, that's a resounding no. Urias is a definite maybe. Urias has a decent bat and positional flexibility, so there should be a role for him even as some of the prospects make their way to the majors. If the Brewers could get a little bit of a discount for taking some risk off the table for Urias, an extension is worth exploring.

Yep. The move to 3T0 baseball around the league has sucked a lot of the joy out of watching baseball. Banning the shift just makes it more likely teams continue to put "all or nothing" guys out on the field. Runs may be around the same as before, but it's a lot of nothing for most of the game, then a couple of walks and a home run for all the scoring in the game. To me, it gets really frustrating watching a runner sit in scoring position while the next few batters swing out of their socks and strike out. Just make contact and you've got a good chance for a run. This is one reason I'm excited to see some of our prospects. We have a lot of high-contact guys coming up, which should be fun to watch.