monty57

In his two top years, Winker's wRC+ was in the 140's. That would put him in the Julio Rodriguez/Juan Soto/Pete Alonzo range. If he does that, I doubt the Brewers trade him. It would, however, go a long ways to getting us the division title and hopefully a good run in the playoffs. As to Turang, I'm fine if he starts, and I'm fine if he's held down to gain a year's service time. The only scenario I don't want to see is him taking on "the Jace Peterson role" as a utility guy off the bench. That would not be worth making him a free agent a year early, losing a year's service time when he's in his prime. To the guy in the title of this thread, I don't see a problem with him starting at 3B, probably getting some bench time in favor of Brosseau when a lefty is on the mound. He plays decent defense at the position and there's plenty of reason to believe that he could be a good bat again. If not, then he's served his purpose by buying us another year of Turang's service when he gets called up and Anderson gets relegated to bench duty or DFA'd. For one of the cheapest free agents signed this offseason, we have become a better team than we were before the signing. Urias gets to move to his natural position, Adames stays at SS, Anderson/Brosseau man the hot corner with Toro/Miller as the utility IF. We (hopefully) start Mitchell and Frelick in the OF, and now we don't have to start three rookies from day one.

I would refer you to Exhibit A: Carlos Correa. He will have a physical, but on a one-year / $3.5M (plus incentives) deal, it won't be looked at quite as closely as Correa's.

Opening day is still a ways away, but this move seems to point to Turang starting the year at AAA to save a year's service time. He's our "replacement in waiting" for SS when Adames is gone, so it isn't a bad idea to preserve an extra year at the position where he provides the most value. 3B/OF isn't your typical utility guy, so Anderson doesn't really fit that role. I guess that he will be the opening day 3B, with Urias moving to 2B where he's been a better fielder and should be the most valuable. The OF flexibility is nice, in that Counsell likes to pinch-hit, so there will be situations where Anderson will shift to OF after someone gets pinch-hit for. Plus, it allows them to only have four OF (Yelich, Frelick, Mitchell, Taylor) on the roster. Urias came up as a 2B, and is below-average defensively at 3B. Turang is a natural SS who hasn't played much 3B. It will be nice to have an actual third baseman playing 3B on a regular basis. I just hope that his bat bounces back. It's a $3.5M signing, so you can't expect too much "needle moving," but this move makes sense. On a one-year deal, there isn't much risk.

That's a pretty good compilation of "Brewers' most valuable assets." Put another way, if the Brewers traded for a prospect of Chourio's level for someone like Winker, Tellez, Lauer or Houser, Arnold would immediately go down in GM folklore. Heck, if he could trade Tellez for someone on Frelick's level he'd do it in a heartbeat without regard to the 2022 first base situation. It's also kind of funny that Urias, the guy so many people are clamoring to replace, is one of our most valuable assets. I'd prefer he play second base, but he's not someone we should be looking to turn into a utility infielder.

Ha. I hope we didn’t trade for a guy who’s career consists of 11 plate appearances at La Moyne College.

Agree. If we were to sign one, I would set my sights on Woodruff. But honestly, I don't think we'll extend any of them, and I think that if we do, it won't be long before the "how can we get out of this contract" talks would start. Burnes' contract will be in the $40-50M annual salary range, so he's out of the discussion. Adames was so-so with the Rays (couldn't hit at Tropicana), had a good partial season once traded to the Brewers, and had 4.7 Fangraphs WAR season in '22, but still ended with an OBP under .300. If he wasn't a Brewer but was a free agent, I doubt people would be clamoring to sign him to a long-term deal for $20-$30M/season. That leaves Woodruff, who would be great to sign if we could get him for a couple of his free agent years. My concern is that he'll be 31, and will know that it will be his one chance to sign a big money deal. He'll probably want 4-6 years of free agency bought out, and I think that's too risky for the Brewers. A four-year ('23-'26) deal would be perfect, and could fit nicely into a couple of years where they have a lot of pre-arby guys and could afford Woodruff and Yelich on big-money deals, after which guys like Frelick, Mitchell, etc will start getting more expensive.

Agree. If we were to sign one, I would set my sights on Woodruff. But honestly, I don't think we'll extend any of them, and I think that if we do, it won't be long before the "how can we get out of this contract" talks would start. Burnes' contract will be in the $40-50M annual salary range, so he's out of the discussion. Adames was so-so with the Rays (couldn't hit at Tropicana), had a good partial season once traded to the Brewers, and had 4.7 Fangraphs WAR season in '22, but still ended with an OBP under .300. If he wasn't a Brewer but was a free agent, I doubt people would be clamoring to sign him to a long-term deal for $20-$30M/season. That leaves Woodruff, who would be great to sign if we could get him for a couple of his free agent years. My concern is that he'll be 31, and will know that it will be his one chance to sign a big money deal. He'll probably want 4-6 years of free agency bought out, and I think that's too risky for the Brewers. A four-year ('23-'26) deal would be perfect, and could fit nicely into a couple of years where they have a lot of pre-arby guys and could afford Woodruff and Yelich on big-money deals, after which guys like Frelick, Mitchell, etc will start getting more expensive.

I'm not a fan of signing extensions to players once they're already in their arby years, as it's basically a free agent deal (very little discount) and the Brewers can't build their roster on long-term free agent contracts. If they are to do one, I think it should be to a game-changer, like Braun and Yelich were when they signed. I think Adames is a fine player, but he's a guy who will get a few All-Star appearances, not a guy who is regularly vying for MVP titles. Even if we didn't play in an economic structure that is slanted against us, I'd have to think long and hard about an Adames extension. He has had an up-and-down career, and his replacement is already in-house and MLB ready. Even if the contract were smaller, I think the best bet is to let Adames play for the Brewers this year, and trade him away after the season for a nice group of young players with a lot of team control, letting Turang take over SS in '24. If we're looking at anything close to $300M, there is no way the Brewers should consider it. I'd be hesitant to give that to Burnes, and he's far more worthy of that contract.

I'm not a fan of signing extensions to players once they're already in their arby years, as it's basically a free agent deal (very little discount) and the Brewers can't build their roster on long-term free agent contracts. If they are to do one, I think it should be to a game-changer, like Braun and Yelich were when they signed. I think Adames is a fine player, but he's a guy who will get a few All-Star appearances, not a guy who is regularly vying for MVP titles. Even if we didn't play in an economic structure that is slanted against us, I'd have to think long and hard about an Adames extension. He has had an up-and-down career, and his replacement is already in-house and MLB ready. Even if the contract were smaller, I think the best bet is to let Adames play for the Brewers this year, and trade him away after the season for a nice group of young players with a lot of team control, letting Turang take over SS in '24. If we're looking at anything close to $300M, there is no way the Brewers should consider it. I'd be hesitant to give that to Burnes, and he's far more worthy of that contract.

Right, which is why he did not sign the contract. The Brewers need to be disciplined, and it appears they have been. As @Robocaller said, these deals should only be done if the player takes a significant discount. I said that the Brewers should offer these deals to all of our good pre-arby guys. I understand that many of these guys will not sign them. Some players will see the benefit of signing a guaranteed extension for a discount, others will want to maximize their earnings by going year-to-year. Early extensions are just one tool for the Brewers to use. They aren’t a panacea. But, they are an important tool for small revenue teams to try to keep players for an extra year or two and control their cost in a world where they can’t compete with the big markets in free agency.

If Hiura had signed the Peralta deal, he’d be making $2.25M this year, which is probably what the Brewers will owe him after agreeing to arby, and would be guaranteed about $10.5M over the next three years. Even if the players don’t work out, the deal still isn’t going to hurt too much. There’s risk in anything they do. If they stick to the math, and only sign the guys who will agree to their deal, they can control the risk. That Hiura, Villar, and Hall didn’t sign means that the Brewers do stick to their guns. If they player demands more, then no extension is done. We have not regretted any of the early extensions we’ve done. We have regretted most of the late extensions we’ve done.

I want to add to this that successful early extensions greatly improve trade value. Woodruff is undoubtedly a better pitcher than Peralta, but according to Baseball Trade Values, Woodruff's value is 50.5. while Peralta is 63.8. Woodruff will be 30 next year, has 4.161 years of service time, is a free agent in '25, and is expected to get $13.25M in '23. Peralta turns 27 next June, has 4.09 years of service time, will not be a free agent until '27 (per Fangraphs, Cots has him a FA in '26, but I think Fangraphs is right), and will make $3.735M in '23. Both of these guys have nearly the same service time, but we could field of guys on Peralta's contract for around $97M, while Woodruff's final arby year will be close to $20M, and Peralta will still be under "team control" for two years after Woodruff hits free agency. How are these deals bad for the Brewers, and why shouldn't we be offering them to Contreras, Frelick, Mitchell, Turang, and every other good prospect shortly after they hit the majors? Even if half of the prospects flamed out, we would still "win" if all of them accepted. Of course they all won't accept, at which point we will know who will be long-term pieces, and who are "year-to-year" guys who won't be extended.

Not only did it move quickly, the Mets blew the expected price range for free agents through the roof, then the other teams with extra money to spend followed suit, pushing prices up on everyone. All the other rich owners have to be trying to decide what they're going to do if Cohen and the Mets do this again next year. If they decide to compete with the Mets if they do it again, the Brewers' days of signing free agents will be history. I thought we'd make a push for a "setup guy," but at this point, I'm not sure. I'm glad we have young depth for the 'pen, but would like another "proven" arm or two for the back-end of the 'pen.

I look at it as transferring risk, much like the insurance industry. The team is assuming the injury/bad play risk, so the player has to accept less money than they may get if they maintained the risk and went year-to-year. Risk transfer has been calculated by insurance companies since the days of Columbus and Magellan, and they do pretty well with it. Well run baseball organizations can as well, as long as they stick to their math. To me, there is no reason for a team to sign an extension in the arby/pre-arby years unless the player agrees to a substantial discount. The farther out from free agency, the deeper the discount. This is essentially the player "paying his premiums" for the transferring of risk to the team. Once a player gets into their arby years (where Burnes, Woodruff and Adames currently sit), the team is basically signing a free agent deal with very limited discount. The Brewers can't live in this arena, at least for their star players. They should try to extend every good pre-arby player they can to a discounted deal that gives them 1-2 extra years of service time. These are the Asnby/Peralta/Lucroy/Braun (first deal) type of deals. There is risk that the player doesn't pan out. But, let's say Ashby is never better than a middle reliever. With his contract, he won't be that overpaid as a veteran middle reliever, and he certainly won't be the main reason the Brewers can't make other moves. Even if he completely flames out, the team won't be that bad off. If a player opts to go year-to-year rather than accepting the early (discounted) extension, that's fine. It's their right to do so, and they are maintaining most of the risk. The Brewers need to accept that they are year-to-year players, and they shouldn't grow too attached. Trade them when it makes the most sense, which will normally be around 1-2 years prior to their hitting free agency. It's a business. "Math nerds" are taking over the front offices, and from their standpoint early extensions should be very appealing.

I get what you're saying, and making sure fans continue to buy tickets is always a consideration. That said, any team that makes it's decisions based on appeasing the "casual fan" is not going to be a successful organization. With the guys they have, they are still long-shots to win it all. Keeping them to "go for it" one more year doesn't assure them anything... they might not even make the playoffs. We don't have the resources to quickly rebuild the major league team through free agency. Losing the potential guys we could get in trade would lead to a long downturn, and would be a fatal error by Brewer management. The fan base will be fine as they see the newly acquired players putting up all-star seasons for half a decade while Burnes is playing out a $40M+/year contract. At the end of the day, it is "the name on the front of the shirt" that fans cheer for. Shortsighted fans will be upset by the trades, but the good thing about shortsighted fans is that they will remain shortsighted, and will be happy when the new guys start playing well. Trading Lucroy and Gomez allowed the Brewers to turn things around much more quickly than most thought possible. No one is bemoaning the fact that we didn't extend Lucroy and Gomez. Trading Burnes, Woodruff and Adames will be what allows us to continue on as a playoff team for years to come instead of taking one long-shot chance and then suffering through a rebuild. Then the following year we'll trade Peralta, and so on. Extending players early in their career and trading them before they hit free agency is the way for a team like the Brewers to remain "continually competitive." Fans will get used to it, or they'll migrate to a big market team that doesn't have to operate under the constraints put on the Brewers.

Since they extended Peralta and Ashby, I would assume they made similar offers to other players as well. The further along a player's pre-arby/arby schedule a player gets, the less "team friendly" the deal gets, so I fully expect them to make offers to most, if not all, of their talented young, pre-arby guys soon. Contreras would be included in this. Some of them will see the value in guaranteeing life-altering money, while others will choose to take some risk and go year-to-year in an attempt to maximize their earnings. The Brewers will have to act accordingly. In our current case, that means they get some extra time with Peralta (who accepted the offer), while trading away Burnes and Woodruff who went year-to-year. 2023 should be a fun year watching the loaded rotation, along with what will hopefully be an improved lineup. It will also be a year where some guys who will be "core" players for the next half-decade get some much needed experience, as they'll be heavily relied upon after Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, Lauer, etc are traded away prior to 2024. I'm excited to watch this year, and I'm also excited to see what we'll receive in trade after the year is done that will hopefully build our future playoff rosters. In his short tenure, I think that Arnold has shown the willingness to trade, and some aptitude in getting a good deal. We'll need that moving forward.

Yeah, "prospect" is a pretty broad net. There's a big difference between "The Brewers acquire a prospect" and "The Brewers acquire a Top 10 prospect." When I see the first, I'm assuming it's a "for cash considerations" deal. When I see the second, I clear the calendar because I know I'm going to be spending all night reading up on the deal. Everyone in the minors is a prospect. Few will ever play on a MLB field. But, as I've said a couple of times recently, even guys who play for a few pre-arby seasons are valuable additions, especially to a small revenue team like the Brewers. We need 26 men on the roster, so if someone like Lutz (since he's been brought up) can man a backup OF spot for a season or two at league minimum and save us from spending a few million on a veteran, it's something.

Ruiz should definitely have range, but he's still raw in the OF, as he came up as a infielder. He'll probably take some bad routes to balls until he gets more experience. The scouting reports I read when we traded for him suggested that the scouts thought he could stick at CF, but he needs more reps. It sounds like the A's are planning on giving him those reps in the MLB outfield, so I'd expect some highlight-reel plays where he can get to balls other players couldn't, and he's going to have some plays where he looks foolish, simply because he hasn't been in the OF for long. Most players have seen thousands of fly balls by the time they hit the MLB OF. Ruiz will be more like hundreds. Some of those fly balls will be coming at him at speeds over 100 MPH.

Here's how I see it: Lets say the Brewers can afford a $120,000,000 payroll. There are 26 players, so that's $4,615,385 on average per player. League minimum salary is $700,000, so for every league minimum guy on the roster, you can have an $8.5M guy and stay within budget. If we want a $26M guy on the roster, that's about 6x our "average player," so you basically need 6 pre-arby guys on the roster for every $26M player on the roster. This isn't exact, we could have a whole lot of crappy $2-4M veteran journeymen, but you get the picture. Bottom line is that we can't afford many big money players, and if we want them, we need to have a bunch of pre-arby guys on the roster. Some of these guys will be "top prospects" who have been recently called up, but a lot of them have to be guys like Payamps who can get them a little bit of value for around league minimum. So, for those hoping we sign free agents so we don't have to rely on the rookies, you can't really have it both ways. Having the rookies allows us to have some higher-priced guys. You aren't going to win with a team full of $4.6M veterans... you probably wouldn't win 70 games. Therefore, we need to rely heavily on our farm, and getting a guy like Payamps thrown into a trade is much more beneficial to the Brewers than it is to a bigger revenue team.

That right there shows how far we've come. I'm amazed at how well Stearns & Co. rebuilt the farm while playing playoff-caliber baseball at the MLB level.

Regarding the relievers, who were essentially throw-ins because the trade looks like a landslide victory even without them: Payamps is probably going to be on the MLB roster as a middle reliever, as he's out of options. He's in his final pre-arby year, so he'll be playing for around league minimum, and if he can keep his ERA in the 3's like he has in 2019, 2020 and 2021, he should be useful. Steamer projects him for a 4.11 ERA, 7.72 K/9, 3.03 BB/9 with a 43.4% Ground ball rate. He's not someone you build a team around, but a league minimum guy who can eat up some middle-relief innings for you is necessary for every team in baseball. Like anyone, he might blow up, but he does have some track record to show that he'll help the Brewers this year. All-in-all, adding him to the deal probably saves us a couple million we would've had to spend on a veteran reliever. Yeager is going straight to the minors and may never leave. If he gets his command issues fixed, he could be a good reliever. That could be said about a lot of guys, and the odds are probably against that happening. These guys probably aren't worth getting too excited about, but I'm sure Payamps will play with our emotions through the season... hopefully more in a positive sense than a negative one. Relievers will do that to you.

That's true. Just because I want all of the prospects to succeed doesn't mean they will. Plus, there will be injuries so it's nice to have some talent tucked away in AAA for when that happens. On that note, it is nice that the prospects in question have shown success at AAA, and we're not just hoping on guys who have a good year in A-ball. The chances of success for a guy who has already worked his way through the minors with some success are higher than a "high upside" guy who still has to make the jump to AA/AAA.

Not really, for extended periods of the season last year, Counsell seemed to forget he was on the roster.

I'm missing something here. I agree with you on Winker. I think he played injured last year, as the previous two years he was one of the best hitters in baseball. If he's healthy, I hope for closer to the 140-ish wRC+ guy he was prior to last year. If that happens, he will be the DH nearly every day. That means Yelich will be our everyday LF. Unless things go really wrong this year, and Winker is traded at the deadline, Yelich's transition to DH will be in 2024, not 2023. That leaves CF and RF. I think that will be Mitchell and Frelick, with Taylor as the backup. I guess it's possible they call up Wiemer and leave Frelick in AAA, but one of Mitchell, Frelick or Wiemer will very likely start the year in AAA, and I'd guess that will be Wiemer. Wiemer will get his debut when someone gets hurt, but I think his shot at a starting role will be 2024, when Yelich likely moves to DH. His opportunity may be limited, as Chourio will likely be in the majors at some point in 2024, and at the rate he's going, none of Frelick, Mitchell or Wiemer will block him. My guess at that time will be that Chourio will play nearly everyday, and Frelick, Mitchell and Wiemer will split time at the other two spots, but a lot can happen between now and then. To topic, we will still have our catcher position locked down, because we just filled that for the next five years! That we cleared up the aforementioned logjam to some degree in order to fill that catching spot made a lot of sense. We should now have our entire OF, Catcher, and shortstop all filled for the next six years with talented young players. We still have a lot of people set to leave after '24, but we're starting to see the guys who will be the "new core" going forward. I like it when a team operates with a long-term outlook.

There is no reason for Hiura to be on the roster. I was surprised they offered him arbitration, as I saw no role for him after last season, and there is really no spot for him with the additions they've made so far this off-season. C - Contreras 1B - Tellez 2B - Turang SS - Adames 3B - Urias LF - Yelich CF - Mitchell/Frelick RF - Mitchell/Frelick DH - Winker Bench Caratini (backup catcher) Brosseau (1B/2B/3B who hits LHP well) Taylor (RH bat who plays all three OF positions) Toro or Hiura A bad defender who should only be used to pinch hit vs RHP doesn't seem too valuable, especially when 6 of the 9 regular starters are left-handed hitters. Hopefully, they'll find someone who will take him in trade, even if we get little in return, just to clear the $2M or so we'd otherwise have to pay him. I would much prefer Brosseau and Toro on the bench over Hiura.