monty57

Agree, and that "sitting on their butt" is necessary to allow for players (especially pitchers' arms) to rest after a grueling season. Then you work them back in over the month of ST, starting with one inning in their first outing and working up from their. Many/most pitchers are still on a limited pitch count for the first few starts of the season, so I wouldn't want to limit their spring workload any further. As others have said, for the players who do not need the full spring, do what the Brewers are doing with Braun, allowing him to sit out games until 3/15. Also, as a fan I'm glad for the extra games. They're not going to extend the season, so shortening ST would just mean we'd have to wait a few more weeks of winter before we get to watch baseball again.

I think that's important. Villar made a business decision the same way the Brewers made a business decision. As a fan of the Brewers, I wish he'd have taken the deal, but turning down the deal doesn't make him a bad person. Some players will take deals like this, knowing they're giving up some money for security. Some will prefer to go year-to-year bearing more risk for the potential to get more money. Neither is wrong, they're just making an informed decision. The Brewers need to treat this as a business as well. Villar is still a Brewer for several more years, but they need to keep a plan in place so that they will be able to replace him a little earlier than they would if he signed an extension. Hopefully, that plan will allow for him to be adequately replaced a year or two before he becomes a free agent, so we can trade him away for a haul of talent, while replacing him internally with a solid prospect.

He's already made over 1million in 6years of time. And another guaranteed 530k roughly in the next 7months. That's already life changing. Not really. If he stopped baseball now, he'd have to get a job making whatever he could make outside of baseball, which probably isn't very high paying. As it has been used in this thread, life changing means that you would be set monetarily for the long term and not have to work again. Even if he's a good saver, it's not likely that he's there yet. As to his arby schedule, assuming he starts all year this year, Reilly was probably close in his projection in post #22. Arby rulings are "old school," so they overvalue things like HR, which is why Carter got cut. I think you're overvaluing him if you think he will get $30-35M over the next four years by going year-to-year, but we'll just have to wait and see. I hope 2016 becomes his "norm" and he becomes a perennial All Star. If that happens, the Brewers will benefit both by having him as a player and by having the opportunity to trade him for a king's ransom in a few years. But, lots of players have a "flash in the pan" year and go on to short, mediocre careers, and lots of players get injuries that limit their effectiveness. If either of those things happen, Villar will probably spend 20-30 years of his life in the "normal" working world. That's why some players choose to take the safer route and accept offers like the one Villar just turned down. It's certainly not a "disappointing offer." Rather, it's a sensible offer considering the risk the team would be assuming. They know that not everyone will take it, but offering significantly more would be financially imprudent.

I highly doubt that we keep all three on the MLB roster even if one of them can defensively play another position. The majority of most catchers' value comes from being a catcher. Probably 90%+ of all of the catchers who have ever played would not make the majors if they played another position. We're better off letting the 3rd catcher stay sharp at catching in AAA rather than having him sit the bench, playing once a week in a corner OF position. Just using their experience to help the talented AAA pitching staff will probably help the MLB team more any marginal value added by having them on the 25-man over someone else. Honestly, I'm not convinced that wouldn't be a negative marginal value, as I'd probably rather start the year with an additional bullpen arm or a real outfielder instead of a third catcher who recently purchased a first baseman's mitt.

These type deals are not "lowball offers," which insinuates that the team is trying to screw over the player. In pre-arby years, the player has a lot of risk because nothing is guaranteed beyond the current year, and they aren't making that much money. Any injury or bad play can seriously hamper the possibility of future income. By offering a guaranteed deal, the team is taking on all of this risk, so therefore should be "compensated" for taking on this risk by paying less than the player would receive if they continued to play at an above average, healthy level. Think of it in the same way as buying insurance. I'm glad that the Brewers are making these offers to deserving players, and have no ill will against a player if they would rather not "buy the insurance." This is a business, so now we just have to hope that someone like Dubon or Diaz is ready in 2-3 years so we can bring them up and trade Villar off for a boatload of prospects, continuing to keep the entire system filled with talent. In the grand scheme of things, the hope for these type of deals is to add value to a commodity. With more years of hopefully under-market-value team control, the player is more valuable to you whether you are playing him or trading him. We always need to be looking to add value to the franchise any way we can. Like any risk scenario, there is a chance it doesn't work, so you just need to weigh the potential risk versus the potential added value.

Having a capable (MLB caliber) third catcher getting full-time duty at AAA is not a bad thing. It's likely at some point this year that one of the two MLB guys will go on the DL, and we'll be happy to have one of Bandy/Susac to call up at that time. It sucks for the player who ends up at AAA, but that's baseball.

I don't know that they're looking to add pitching, as they seem fairly well set, but if they are they should be looking for ground ball pitchers. Matt Garza threw 1.7 ground outs for every air out last year (he's 1.0 GO/AO for his career though). Jimmy Nelson is 1.34 for his career, and Peralta is 1.57. With the way Guerra pitched in Colorado Springs last year, he might actually be a decent fit in Colorado. Honestly, I don't see a fit with Colorado unless we want trade another reliever and deplete our bullpen even further.

Some starting pitcher somewhere will get injured this spring. If it's a Brewer, we have five guys for the rotation. If it's on another team, we can trade one of our guys to them. If neither of these things happen, then McCalvy guesses that Anderson ends up as the long man in the pen. I wouldn't mind seeing Nelson starting in AAA. He probably has the highest ceiling of any of the six, but as we all know, he hasn't shown it for a while. Give him a little time out of the bright lights, let the season play out, and bring him up when a spot opens up.

FV, I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding. I am all for locking up young talent. We absolutely need to do that to compete. Our main difference seems to be that if someone looks like they should be extended, I'd prefer to do it in their pre-arby years. I'm not a big fan of extending players once they are in year 2 or 3 or arby. By that time, you don't get much of a discount and the player must have had some "warts" that caused you to not want to lock him up in the previous four or five years you've had him. I don't believe waiting an extra year will cause those "warts" to disappear. Once they get to that point, I would rather just trade those players away for more prospects, as they aren't part of the long-term plans. If they happen to have just had a phenomenal season great, that means you'll get a lot more in trade and someone else can over pay when the player regresses to his norms. Build around the guys you lock up early, always strive to have a strong farm, and fill in the rest of the holes (hopefully role players, bullpen arms, and "fill out the rotation" starters) through free agency.

I'll worry about a player fretting over being underpaid once overpaid players start giving money back to the team. If your example played out, then Villar would have no grounds for demanding a trade. The media likes to run stories about underpaid guys, but you rarely hear any players complaining. They (and their agent) understand the decision they made when they signed the contract. As to your second paragraph, the Brewers can afford a lot of undervalue contracts, but they can only afford a few market value contracts. They need to get undervalued players wherever and whenever they can. If you lock up players at market rate (which will occur if you wait until year 2 or 3 of arby to sign the extension), then you end up in a situation like we just got out of, with most of our money going to a few aging guys and no money left over to fill in the holes. Then you become completely reliant on your farm pumping our starting quality MLB players every year or you end up playing guys like Yuni B and Overbay (the second time around). Signing a player at that stage is effectively the same as signing a free agent, and smaller-market teams can't build a roster that is too reliant on free agency.

Davies' agent will do what Davies says. But, you are probably correct that most players don't hire Boras as an agent if they do not want to go for the most possible money, which is normally going year-to-year through the "cheap" years.

That's a very valid point mrn1ceguy. When I used Gennett and Peralta, I thought the exact thing you're saying, but they're the only comps on the Brewers right now. I did a quick look into other teams, and it looked like most average-ish guys were being paid about the same as Gennett and Peralta. Arby valuation is odd, and being a starting player is far more important than being good. Most players fit in one tranche, and star players are in a higher tranche. But that doesn't rebuke your point. Even though the contracts aren't team killing, the Brewers will still need to be careful in offering them. As I mentioned in post #26, the only players projected to be on the MLB roster on Opening Day who I would consider for extensions are Davies, Villar, Arcia, and Santana. All of these guys are young, still in pre-arby, and have talent. The potential for injury or "bust" just has to be priced into the contract in order for it to be worth it. If they won't sign a discounted deal, which is certainly their right, then we'll just get a couple less years of their service. Unfortunately, those will be their prime years because of their age. If you have reasons not to sign a player after a year, those reasons seldom go away after another year. A Brewer example is Rickie Weeks. We rode the roller coaster through his pre-arby years into his arby years, never considering an extension because of injuries and flaws. Then he started playing really good baseball, we extended him to a market-price deal late in his arby years, and the reasons we never extended him once again showed through. If we had extended him early, he probably would have played the same, but we would have paid a lot less. If we hadn't extended him close to free agency, he could have sucked while someone else was paying him free agent dollars. Basically, if they're worth signing, sign them early. If you don't sign them early, trade them when they're entering their 2nd or 3rd year of arbitration rather than extending them then.

The rumor (I believe from a McCalvy article) was that the Brewers thought they could have to pay around $11M if it went to arby. I agree that if Thames went elsewhere, the Brewers probably would have approached Carter with an offer like you suggested.

I agree. I guess I don't see anyone taking a 5/15 or similar "low" contract unless they are expected to be a role player (part time catcher like susac, non-closer relief pitcher, super sub like perez). If we can get some people like Broxton, Santana, Villar, Arcia to take the 5/15, 4/15 then I would be all for it. I just think the only "early" contracts that would be accepted by anyone who looks to be at a talent that will stick will require the 5/40 type contracts. Kirk N. signed for $900,000 in what would be his first year of arby. Torres signed for $2.175M in his second year of arby. Part-timers and non-closing relievers are not worth nearly 6/15 when the first three years are at league minimum. They're probably closer to half of that, and many of them won't even get through the full six years of "team control." Meanwhile Gennett, who has been a starter his whole career, signed for $2.525M in his first year of arby, and Peralta's at $4.275 in his second year. That would mean that a "non-star" full time player should get around $15-16M in their first six seasons if they go year-to-year. Throw in a year of free agency, and knock off their first pre-arby year, as they probably wouldn't get offered the deal until after they've played a season, and you're looking at the low-$20M's. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the team needs to get a substantial discount from this number in order to take on the risk of the player getting injured or regressing, so something in the 6/$15-18M is probably not a bad guess for locking up a guy you think should be starting caliber, but not a star. The key is to make the offer early on, when players are not set for life. They know that one injury or down year could mean they will be flipping burgers for minimum wage. The security of a long term, eight figure guaranteed deal is very appealing to these guys. Not all of them will take it, but a good number of them will, and that can be a way to lock in some key guys for a long time at what you hope to be a below-market-rate price. The longer a team waits, the closer to market value they will have to pay for the player.

Good for him, but this shows how out of whack the arbitration process is in valuing players if two teams in a row gave up his rights rather than pay what he would have been awarded, only to have him sign a deal for far less money in free agency.

As long as the team gets an extra year or two of control and gets a substantial perceived value (paying a lot less than they assume the player would get if he went year-to-year), then I'm all for these deals. In these deals, the team takes on a lot of extra risk (injury, bad play), so the player has to "buy out" that risk by accepting far less than he thinks he's worth if he retains the risk by going year-to-year (much like buying insurance). Even a smaller market team like the Brewers can afford a bunch of these deals at any given time, and they actually add some cost certainty in predicting future payroll obligations. Think of it this way, the Brewers could have an entire roster of John Lucroy contracts and still afford a couple of $20M+ players. Not everyone will sign one of these deals, but they're nice to have on the docket for the players that sign them. In my opinion, once the players get too far into arbitration, the team has probably lost its chance of getting a substantial enough bargain to make the deals worthwhile, so they probably should be done in the first 3-4 years of a players career. If they haven't proven themselves in the first four years, then there is probably reason to believe that they are not worth a bigger money extension after their fourth or fifth season. Also, if makes little sense to extend someone who is already under team control through his prime years, so no extensions to rookies who are already 26 or older. That's a knock against extending Broxton, who is 26 (birthday Sept 21). Shaw is also 26, and with his age and question marks I'd probably pass on looking to extend him. The only pitcher worth even mentioning right now is Davies (24), and I'd have no problem if they signed him to a Lucroy-like extension. We have plenty of minor league pitchers who may be worth extending once they're up, but let's wait until they're up. As to position players, Arcia (22), Villar (25) and Santana (24) could all be looked into. Brinson looks like the type of player that could get a Braun-type extension (the first one), but again let's let him get to the big leagues first. The important point is that the Brewers have to draw a hard line that if the player wants the security of an extension, they are going to sign for a discount. Anyone who doesn't do this can still be a valuable player for a few years, but they're the ones who need to start getting shopped once they're into their arby years. Note that this is also why I like pushing guys a bit in the minors, moving them up quickly until their play forces you to hold them at a level. Guys like Arcia and Brinson could get extended and we'd get them for eight years in their 20's, losing them just as they're heading out of their prime, allowing someone else to overpay for their decline years.

I'd rather just let Thames show what he can do. If he shows that he can't hit LHP in the first couple of months, then we either let Perez or Pina platoon with him, or we bring up Brinson and see if Santana can handle playing 1B a couple times a week.

He's a 24-year old reliever who was in AA last year, so that's not surprising. Looks like he strikes out a decent amount and doesn't give up many HR (two in his entire minor league career), so could be a decent pick-up for a team based in Colorado. I think both teams did okay here. Cubs took more risk with higher upside, while the Rockies traded a guy who doesn't appear to be able to pitch in the thin air for a solid relief prospect who should be pretty well MLB ready with six years of control. Not a blockbuster, but makes sense for both teams.

Barring trade, I think you're right. Unless the Brewers plan on using Perez & Thames as their 4th/5th OFs, I don't see him making the club. However, he could be good insurance against a Thames injury, as we don't really have a backup 1B.

Agree. Make whatever moves necessary to be as good as you can this year without impeding the long-term goals of the rebuild. This move is simply tinkering to try to find the best mix to start the season. Finding the right mix of bench players can win an extra couple of games through the season, but if Adrianza plays a major role, then something probably went wrong.

That's probably not fair. Colorado is a unique situation for pitchers, and a lot of them just are not going to handle it well. That's why I hate that we're forced to have our AAA team in Colorado Springs. I think there's a good chance that this guy will get his head back together with another organization, and could be a very good pick-up for the Cubs, who are going to lose a lot of MLB pitching talent over the next couple years. Colorado has been trying to figure out pitching since the franchise was founded. They're probably best finding a bunch of ground ball guys, and putting an emphasis on infield defense.

Moral of the story his PED use makes teams not want him or want to pay way less for him. That's part of it. He can also only be traded to a few teams, most of which don't need him. He has a contract that pays him a substantial amount of money into his decline years, and there was an overabundance of right-handed power hitters on the market this offseason. This was the last chance before 10/5 hits, and although there's still time, it's looking like he won't be traded. I don't hate that he will likely be a Brewer for life, it just means that we will probably have a logjam in the OF in the not-too-distant future, and in a year or two it could lead us to trading away someone who is younger, cheaper and more productive than Braun because Braun will be immovable and we will have a lot of good, young OFs.

This pretty well sums things up. If Gennett is traded, we'll probably see something like Perez as the "hit first" utility guy, with Rivera as the "defense first" utility guy. He's not blocking one of our top prospects... he's blocking another utility guy. I'd rather see the less expensive, more versatile guy up, but it is what it is. As things stand, Gennett is a square peg in a round hole, so if he can show some ability to play another position or two, he can at least add a little more value to the team this year. Hopefully they can find someone who can better use his services before opening day.

I agree completely. I'm no doctor, and the science behind these things is way over my head, but if HGH is mainly used for recovery purposes and does not truly enhance performance, then I don't see why it is banned while something like cortisone is widely accepted. Now, I understand that it is banned, so using it should get someone in trouble, but the people in charge of putting the "banned list" together might want to revisit the list if this is the case. Heck, every medical procedure "enhances recovery" and helps get people back on the field quicker. That said, I have done some travelling to other states, and if Braun's name is brought up the first thing people talk about is his PED usage. GM's are more informed than "average Joe," but it could certainly have a negative effect on whether or not he gets traded.

I think Mark A is a more seasoned, mature owner than he was 5-10 years ago. I think now he would say, 'You have Dave's number, Scott.' I think so too. He seems to have had a revelation after the collapse a few years ago followed up by the horrendous start to the next season. But, if anyone could get him to fall back into his old ways, I'd say Boras is the guy.