monty57

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.

I think the "continually competitive" mantra is what's behind the personnel moves, not a desire to sell. To remain "continually competitive" in a small market, you need a constant influx of young, cheap talent, which is hard to do if you continually trade your prospects away for short-term players. As to the payroll, @sveumrules mentioned this, but Cot's has 2019's opening day payroll at $122,530,400, and this year's opening day payroll at $114,745,000. I would guess that with last year's lower ticket sales, they're being cautious going into this year. If ticket sales bounce back, then they should have money for a mid-season pick-up. I'm personally glad we don't have a bunch of high-priced, long-term contracts on the books, but expect that the team will offer early extensions to the prospects as they hit the majors, as they did with Ashby and Peralta. Those contracts are much more palatable to a smaller-revenue team than big free agent signings. If you can get your core players signed on long-term extensions early, than you only need free agency to fill in the holes, meaning one- or two-year deals that have a lot less risk to them. If Attanasio wants to sell the team, he'll have a long list of people who would love to buy them. Finding buyers is not a problem. The best way to get top dollar is to have a team that continually puts out a winner while operating in a financially sound way, and I think that's what the Brewers have been doing.

Interesting theoretical debate. The whole "Moneyball" theory is to look for skillsets that are being undervalued and buy them up at a discount. Following that logic it would be hard to set the arbitration values based on any specific statistical measures, as the price tag for different skillsets vary with the market. But we can all agree that wins aren't a good measure for determining pitchers' values, right?

But it's not an open market, it's the arbitration system. The system is specifically designed to underpay players for the first six years of their career compared to what they'd get on the free agent market. Love it or hate it, it's what the Union and owners agreed to. It would be just as dumb for a team to willfully overpay "just because they could" as it would be for a star free agent to take league minimum "just because he could."

But they won, which would seem to show that they were more reasonable than Burnes, right? As was stated earlier, I think the Brewers (and probably most teams) want to sign players prior to arby, as they probably hate "dressing down" the players almost as much as the players hate getting "dressed down."

Not sure what the all-time numbers are, but after 2021, MLBtraderumors did an article which stated that of the previous 99 cases, the owners won 51 and the players won 48. That's not "a system set up heavily in favor of the owners." It's a legal proceeding, and no one (outside of the attorneys who make a lot of money off of it) likes going through a legal proceeding. Expecting a player to come out of an arbitration hearing feeling happy is like expecting someone to get through a divorce and saying "boy was that fun."

As was noted early in the thread, one of the biggest problems with the arbitration process is that teams need to "dress down" their own players. It's basically a trial, with attorneys on each side presenting their case to an arbiter, who makes a binding decision. Burnes' side is going to be positive about everything he's done, while unfortunately the team has to be negative. It's been that way through the history of arbitration. The Brewers aren't doing anything different than every team has to do in this process. Unfortunately, it's probably the first time in Burnes' life that he's had someone in a position of authority really tear into his negatives. That's not how you generally treat an athlete, as coaches, trainers, parents, scouts, agents, etc. usually want to focus on the positives. It probably really sucks for him, and he probably really feels like the team isn't on his side. He certainly wouldn't be the first player to go through this process to feel that way.

What was actually said in the hearing will never be publicly known. At the end of the day, the independent arbiter decided in favor of the Brewers, so whatever they said was a more persuasive argument than what Burnes' lawyers argued.

Years ago, Doug Melvin said that he always tried to get contracts signed without going to arbitration, because in arbitration the team is forced to point out why a player doesn't deserve the money they're asking for. This can obviously cause bad feelings for the player, and it's really the opposite of how teams want to treat their players, but it's how the system is set up. Everyone who goes to arbitration is going to have this happen to them. Some will take it harder than others.

That and it still uses "antiquated" methods of determining value. For instance, wins and saves are very important in arbitration. They could keep the system while updating the valuation matrices, but that would probably have to be done through the CBA, and it's probably not high on either side's list.

This just showcases what we all know. Burnes is a fantastic pitcher who is worth a lot of money, and he is going to try to maximize his earnings which is well within his rights as a person and a player. As long as he stays healthy and performs to the level he has been at for several years, he will get one of the largest contracts an MLB pitcher has ever received. The Brewers will not be the team giving him that contract, so they have to determine how to get the most value from Burnes. I look forward to seeing him pitch for the Brewers this year, and I hope they are able to get a king's ransom in return when they trade him away next offseason. It's a business for both sides, so it's best not to get too emotional over any one player.

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 agree with most of what you're saying, but to the bolded part, the opening premise to this thread was/is: "Suppose the Brewers get lucky with Winker and he not only recovers from multiple operations but he bounces back to his prior production of .380/.550. " A .930 OPS would put him up there with Goldschmidt (.981), Altuve (.921), Freeman (.918), Machado (.898), and Arenado (.891). I like the rookies as much as anyone, but Frelick, Wiemer and Mitchell aren't knocking a Freddie Freeman-caliber bat out of the lineup in '24.

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.

I agree. The only way I see the team being able to afford a qualifying offer to Winker is if they decide to trade away Burnes, Woodruff and Adames. Having his bat around in '24 with the young players both coming up from our farm and those we'd receive back in trade could help stabilize things as we try to remain competitive going forward. Then he could be flipped in '24 if the team isn't ready to compete. If the team keeps any of the Burnes/Woodruff/Adames group for their final year (I don't think it'll be possible to keep them all), then it would be tough to fit a QO player into the payroll. That opens up another question. If a player accepts a qualifying offer, can the team immediately trade him? If Winker plays as well as the hypothetical situation in the opening post, and he is offered a QO and accepts, that would give the Brewers yet another player who would be expensive and under team control for one year (2024) before becoming a free agent. If he could be traded, then that would put the team in the position of deciding which (if any) of Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, Lauer, Houser, Winker, etc they would keep and which they would trade away.

To the three scenarios you listed: 1) Trade: If the Brewers are in the race, I think the only scenario in which he would be traded would be if all of our prospects/rookies were knocking the cover off the ball, and we were offered a huge return for Winker. We'd get the value back in trade, and Yelich could take over most of the DH duties with Frelick/Mitchell/Wiemer/Chourio manning the OF. That's a lot that would have to go right, so I doubt he's traded. 2) Qualifying offer: This isn't out of the question, but will depend on what they're doing with guys like Burnes, Woodruff, and Adames. If they're trading those guys away, a one-year/$20M contract would probably fit into their payroll, and having his bat (assuming for sake of this thread that he's a .380/.550 guy) in the middle of the lineup in '24 would help alleviate the loss of the guys we traded. If we hold onto the arby guys for one last "go for it" year, we probably couldn't afford a $20M player, even on one year. 3) Walk for nothing: Right now, I think this is the odds-on favorite for happening. But, it will depend not only on his performance, but also the performance of other players (prospects) and other personnel moves that could be made that would lighten up the payroll. $20M/year is a lot, but when it's only for one year, it could be palatable to the Brewers if they can fit it in the payroll. Plus, if we've traded away the other guys, we may have a down year even with a .380/.550 guy in the middle of the lineup. If that happens, teams would love to trade for him at the '24 deadline, so it would "only" cost up $10M and we'd get some young players back in trade.

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.

People see success differently. If I run a drug company, and the research department finds the cure for cancer in 2023, but it won't be available commercially until 2024 or 2025, I would still consider that a very successful year. In other words, if we use 2023 as a springboard to future success, than that could be viewed as a successful season, even if the major league team didn't play to expectations.

I'll agree that it's fun (or at least interesting) watching a non-Brewers team do something like that. Not so much if it were a team I was cheering for.

Yes, @Jopal78, it is going to be difficult for the $120M Brewers to have the firepower of the $355M Mets, $272M Yankees, $256M Padres, $243M Phillies, $221M Dodgers, etc. The Brewers laid an egg last year, as talent-wise I think they were closer to the '21 team than what they showed last year. A number of things went wrong, but I don't think talent-wise they were nearly as bad as they showed. Our team scored 725 runs in '22 vs 738 in '21. The bigger problem was that we had a lot of injuries to the pitching staff, which gave up 688 Runs in '22 vs 623 in '21. We do have to hope for health, but so does every team. When healthy, our pitching staff probably should be closer to the third best in the majors, like they were in '21, than what they showed last year. The offense is a bit more uncertain, as we've had more changes. On the positive side: 1) On the offensive side, the '21 CFs set the bar pretty low. Mitchell doesn't have to do much to overcome their offensive production. 2) While McCutchen's 98 wRC+ isn't horrible, it isn't good for a DH, and he never should have been cemented into the top of the order. Almost any of our hitters would have been a better choice as a #3/4 hitter vs RHP. Winker should be an upgrade here. 3) Adames had a dismal .278 BABIP, causing his OBP to suffer (.298). This would hurt anywhere, but it really hurts when he sat in the 2-hole all year. While that could happen again, it shouldn't be expected. 4) Narvaez had a down year offensively, and Caratini wore out as the season went on. Even with a Sophomore slump, Contreras should be an offensive upgrade. On the negative: 1) Renfroe was solid offensively. Taylor has decent overall numbers in his career, but he probably won't match the offense Renfroe posted. Even assumng Frelick or Wiemer are called up, we could see a decline offensively here. On the positive, we should see better defense. 2) Anderson hasn't been very good the past two seasons. He could bounce back, but he could also post another 0.5 WAR like he did last year. Turang is waiting in the wings, but I don't know that they'll match the production Wong gave us last year. So overall, I see reason to believe that the offense could be a little better, and the pitching should be a lot better than we saw last year. That would put us around where we were in '21. But, I'm an optimist. The games still need to be played.

McCutchen hit for a wRC+ of 98 as the primary DH/top of the order bat last year. That's the bar for Winker, whose career average for wRC+ is 126. Narvaez was a 1.1 (Fangraphs) WAR player last year. That's the bar for Contreras who accumulated 2.4 WAR last year. Even if the new guys underperform to the level of the guys they're replacing, but we just don't have the excessive injuries to our starting pitching that we had last year, we should still be in the playoffs, which we just missed last year even with McCutchen entrenched at the top of the order, Narvaez hugely underperforming at catcher, a complete mental meltdown because someone was traded, and a slew of injuries to our pitching staff. We weren't nearly as bad last year as some posters make it out to be. We have most of the pieces back, and Winker and Contreras should be big upgrades at their positions.

That's like giving props to someone who takes his retirement fund and blows it in Vegas. The only way I'll give him props for what he's done is that when it completely blows up and he's left with an underperforming, expensive MLB team with no prospects left to help out, it will serve as a good example to all the fiscally responsible owners that they are correct in their decisions. I will celebrate anything that might help keep Attanasio from slipping and doing something dumb. Honestly, it's not really the overspending the Padres are doing. Heck, maybe they have a lot of excess revenue and they'll be fine financially. It's that they had an unbelievably strong farm system and they traded it all away. I'm interested to see how quickly Washington can turn things around with everyone they got back in the Soto deal. It's not just a small market thing. No good owner/GM would throw away the future like that. At least no good owner/GM who wasn't planning on selling the team or leaving town in the near future. If they want to be competitive with the Dodgers, they should look at how often the Dodgers trade away prospects vs how often they let guys walk and replace them with rookies from the farm. If the Brewers right now traded away Chourio, Frelick, Wiemer, etc. to add a couple of expensive pieces to this team, I'd be crushed.

I think that there is a very high probability that Winker will easily outperform all of the rookies at the plate. As a DH, Winker is a much better choice than any of the OF prospects. However, all of the rookies derive positive value in the field as well, which is where Winker falters. Winker was a good pick-up, as he'll help solidify the offense, shouldn't be required to play much in the OF, and is here on a one-year deal, allowing the team to wean in the prospects but opening a spot for them next year when they have more experience.

Well written article as usual. I agree with your points on what would make for a successful season. 1) Playoffs. Like last year, it's hard to call a season a success without it ending with some playoff games. Ideally, it would go even farther, but I'm a "playoffs are a crapshoot" guy, so I don't think the season is a waste if they get beat in the playoffs. 2) See how the players develop. This goes for everyone who has a future with the team. How will Peralta's arm hold up this year? How will the upper level prospects play, and when will they hit the majors? How will Contreras do in his Sophomore season with a new team? We've seen the farm move up the ranks, will this trend continue even as we start to graduate some guys to the majors? 3) At this point, I think the pending free agents will be resolved next offseason unless there is catastrophic failure which leads to them being traded at the deadline. Therefore, the only way that affects the success of this season is that they all need to stay healthy and play well. I don't necessarily consider last year a failure, as they did get good development on the farm, but from last offseason to this one, we went from being considered the odds-on favorites to win the division, and maybe even make a World Series to "these guys can't keep up with the Cardinals." That certainly can't be a success. If we're looking now until this time next year, if we're going into next year (after the rookies have more experience and we've done what we've done with the pending free agents) with fans excited and thinking that we are still a playoff favorite, then this year (12 month period) will probably have been a success.

Ah, I misread. You meant “provide value over Wong” rather than “provide any value.” My bad. After last season, many/most posters thought the Brewers would decline Wong’s option. That they were able to get Winker and Toro when many thought they’d pay $2M to buy out Wong and get nothing of value leads me to say it was a pretty good deal.