monty57

I expect the Cubs to be at or near the top of the division for a long time, but 2017 is the last year for Arrieta, and Lester is getting older. Having three Cy Young-caliber guys at the top of the rotation doesn't happen very often, so 2017 is probably their best bet for another ring. I'm generally in favor of trading short-term guys for longer-term guys, but there is little doubt that this increases the odds for the Cubs to win it all in 2017. As you stated, they gave up a guy who really didn't have a spot on the roster, and while I'm sure they would love to have Davis for more than one year, they are going to start running into arby raises soon, so clearing some future payroll obligations isn't a terrible thing for them.

Any idea what we got back from the Cubs?

I agree and yes I hope I'm wrong too. This trade looks like the Brewers think the same thing and rushed to unload him before that happens. I can't say I blame them. Stearns seems to value players somewhat differently than many of the people who make "the lists." He looks for young players who are not yet on other guys' lists. This allows him to get multiple guys who he expects to rise onto these lists, instead of getting one guy who is already on the lists. For example, his choice for trading Lucroy was the Cleveland offer with a bunch of young guys over the Texas offer with "Top 100" guys. I like what we ended up with, but that was Stearns' second choice. I also remember most posters hating that we traded Lind for three teenagers no one had ever heard of, but now most here are pretty happy with that deal. There is risk in going against the grain and trusting your valuations over the valuations that are publicly distributed, but since finding "diamonds in the rough" seems to be his forte, I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I highly doubt he made this deal because he felt rushed and that he had to make a deal before an injury occurred. Rather, I think he likes what he got back, and felt it was the best move to make to continue to add talent to the team.

Your assuming Gennett will be the one traded and not Villar who's value is much higher? Why not deal Villar now when his value is high? With the likes of Dubon and Diaz in the system, why risk Villar slumping in 2017? Because Villar is under control for several more years, he can play multiple positions, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that he's on the team when they contend. Yeah, Villar is a better, cheaper player with more upside and team control. There's really no reason for Gennett to remain a Brewer. Trading him opens up a spot for a more versatile player for the bench. Counsell was on MLB Network's "High Heat" over lunch. Russo said something along the lines of "You have a really nice young shortstop who came up late last year in Villar." Counsell played it off well, going into some detail about why he likes Villar but that he would be playing mainly second base next year, tactfully correcting Russo that Arcia was the shortstop of the future. I bring this up here, because Counsell pretty much acknowledged that Villar is now the second baseman. Not really a shocking revelation, but I would be pretty surprised if they decide to trade Villar in favor of Gennett.

I like this thought from the MLBtraderumors write-up about the trade: Alternatively, Milwaukee could lure a second- or third-tier arm to their rebuilding club on an affordable deal with the promise of offering an opportunity to close out games. In addition to providing the Brewers with some needed veteran stability in the ’pen, that tactic could also yield yet another midseason trade chip if he ultimately performs well in a high-leverage role. Making a reliever a closer is the easiest way to add value to a player, so this is the direction I would go.

So I guess that notion of the Dodgers not being able to spend any money and having to cut salary due to MLB debt rules (and therefore not being able to trade for Braun) can be thrown out the window. Good for Hill to finally cash in on what will be the final (and only) big-money deal of his career, but I think the Dodgers will wish they hadn't made this deal in a year or two.

Stearns seems to prefer trades where he can get the young players before they break out more than trading for guys who are already known. I think that during Stearns' tenure, we will have a lot of discussions about why we didn't get a "higher upside" guy, followed a year or so later with discussions of "I can't believe we got that guy so cheap." With the acquisition of Shaw, we now know what the 2017 infield will look like, and it's easier to see Perez's role. It would be great if Shaw could be next year's version of Villar, seemingly coming out of nowhere to put up good numbers, but really I'm just hoping he can prove that he's a decent MLB player able to hold down 3B for a cheap price for a number of years. The real potential prizes are the minor leaguers. Pennington sounds a lot like Thornberg. Good fastball, don't know if he'll end up as a starter or reliever. We've got the best pitching on the farm I can ever remember, but I'm always up for adding more talent to that mix. Meanwhile Dubon sounds like a good defense, good contact, good on base guy who is primed for a breakout season. He looks to be the key component to this deal, who could be on all the "Top prospect" lists next year. Of all the three, he's the one who looks like a guy Stearns would target to build a trade around.

The problem is that Carter would likely be slated for $8-10M if he went through arbitration. It would only make sense for a team to trade for him if they thought he was worth it, and while many teams may be interested in him, nobody will likely touch him at that price (let alone part with a player to acquire the right to do it). Yeah, I originally thought they had a shot at trading him, but when they made it public that they expected his arby number to be over $10M, that pretty much shot that idea. Some team will likely negotiate a free agent deal with Carter for much less than that arby number, much like the Brewers did prior to last season.

:-) Sorry, I threw things off track. I was simply trying to say that not spending a dollar this year doesn't necessarily mean that dollar is in the bank to spend next year. Budgets are generally year-to-year based on that year's projected revenues, and I don't think the Thames signing will in any way have a negative effect on any other moves made over the next three years.

Interesting. I thought I read they lose a 3rd if they sign a guy and are under the tax, but they lose a 2nd and 5th if they are over the tax. I probably read it wrong. I skimmed it quickly this am. You're right. I guess I had too many other things on my mind when I was reading the article. While I was wrong about this, I did find this snippet at MLBtraderumors: Teams that go $40MM over the luxury tax line will see their top draft pick fall by ten spots.

Brewers are likely organized as a pass-through entity. Maximum federal tax rate for individuals is 39.6%. And most of the owners will pay state/local taxes on top of that. At my company we use a baseline 45% tax rate for owner income. Yes, that changes things if they are a passthrough. Regardless I don't think Mark A got rich by paying $16M in salary to save $5M in taxes. Your initial response was in disbelief at my "1/3 to 1/2 in taxes" comment. As And That noted, high income earners do often pay a high rate in total taxes, and in some states that gets up to 50% (WI is a high tax state, as are Attanasio's home states of NY and CA). In regards to the above quoted text, signing a player is a capital investment for a team, and business owners make capital investments to save on taxes all the time. Hopefully, saving on taxes is not the only net result of this signing, as the big reason for doing it is that they hope Thames will be a good MLB player, who adds wins to the MLB team. They obviously believe that spending the money on him over the next three years is better for the organization than holding onto the money, paying their taxes, and keeping the rest in a vault somewhere for future use. They have excess revenues now, and they're trying to use some of that to increase the overall talent level of the franchise. This is the first significant move of the offseason, but should be far from the last. As fans, I think we should be happy that the team is making an effort to use everything available to them (including free cash flow) in an attempt to get better. Maybe the signing bombs, but that's the risk any business owner takes when making an investment in their business. For the Brewers, the downside risk to this transaction isn't that damaging, while the upside could really help the team. If he bombs, they end up with a slightly overpriced LH power bat off the bench. If he becomes an average MLB first baseman, he becomes an underpriced asset, and could help the team in added wins now, and/or by bringing back a nice return in a future trade.

Interesting. I thought I read they lose a 3rd if they sign a guy and are under the tax, but they lose a 2nd and 5th if they are over the tax. I probably read it wrong. I skimmed it quickly this am. You're right. I guess I had too many other things on my mind when I was reading the article.

Losing draft picks for going/staying over the luxury tax seems pretty significant. If I read it right, it looks like teams lose a third rounder for the first time over the cap and a 2nd rounder and 5th rounder if they stay over.

I hate the attitude, but Puig wouldn't be the worst guy to get back. He has tons of ability, and could fill LF until trade deadline, when we'd trade him and bring Brinson up. If the change of environment and full-time play were enough to get him to play like he did in his first couple of seasons, he could even bring us back a good haul when we trade him. Mainly, if his salary offset were enough to net us a top prospect, that would be the reason the deal could happen.

I don't think that's really how it works. I don't think they're putting that in a piggy bank and saying "ok, well we didn't spend it this year, so we'll be able to spend MORE money next year. If they didn't spend it, they didn't spend it. Whatever they don't spend in 2016 is just profit. Which is taxed, so they'll lose around 1/3 to 1/2 of it to Uncle Sam and the rest would likely go out as dividends to the owners. Probably better used to reinvest it into the franchise to keep the fans energized. They've done well in getting the farm back in shape, and now it doesn't hurt to spend a little money to get some potentially exciting players on the MLB roster. I'm excited to see what Thames will bring to the table, and am excited to see what other moves the Brewers have coming this offseason. A lot still depends on what happens with Braun. The 11-25-16 article from MLBTraderumors quoted Stearns as saying that he was not currently working on anything regarding Braun. I still think he'll be traded, but if Braun remains a Brewer, they should have a decent offense this year, and could push a .500 season. Depending on how the pitching prospects progress, they could be eyeing a Wild Card run by 2018. If he's traded, depending on what they got back, it would leave a huge hole in the offense that not many could fill.

Stearns continues to show that in his version of a rebuild, talent needs to be acquired at all levels in any way possible. When he can get someone for what he perceives as a value, he gets him. If Thames can put up an OPS around .800 while playing good defense and stealing 20-30 bases, he would be a steal for around $5M/year. I like Carter, but Thames could be a better all-around player with higher upside for less annual salary. Now I hope we can get something back for Carter. I don't expect much, since he's been DFA'd, but Stearns seems good at finding "hidden" talent, as he did when trading for Villar and Broxton, and in dealing away Lind. Maybe if he digs deep enough, he'll bring back another gem.

I'm sure the picture will be more clear after the winter meetings conclude. It's likely that Braun is traded, and if so we will get some "salary relief" veterans coming back. If one is a first baseman, that answers that question. Or, if one is an OF, then moving Santana to first base makes a lot of sense. I like Carter, but I am assuming that they have a plan in place. I really don't think they'd save a few million to get someone like Lind at $5M instead of Carter at $8M. They likely have a younger target in mind, or they could be non-tendering Carter with the feeling that they can re-sign him to a $5-6M deal. Let the fun of offseason speculation commence!

I think I get where you're going, but reducing payroll does not reduce debt. It reduces future obligations, and assuming revenue remains constant, the additional money not spent on payroll could (in the future) be used to pay down debt, but if they were able to somehow get rid of $100M in 2017 payroll immediately, their current debt would remain the same. I'd guess that there is a rule in place that once debt-to-income or debt-to-asset ratios reach a certain point, the team is mandated to cut payroll by a certain % and use the excess revenues to pay down debt until the ratios are back in line. As to Braun-to-the-Dodgers talk, there is little doubt that the MLB guys coming back would be included as salary relief for the Dodgers, who probably just need to have a lower payroll for a season or two in order to be able to pay off enough debt for them to get the commissioner's office off their back going forward. Braun would "only" cost them $15M for 2017 & 2018 (rest is deferred), and Puig and McCarthy combine for nearly $20M in 2017 & 2018 salary. Anderson ($15.8M), Jansen ($10.65M), Utley ($7M), Howell ($6.25M), Turner ($5.1M), and Ellis ($4.5M) are all free agents, and after 2017, Crawford and Guerrero's nearly $30M will be off the books. For the most part, they're likely in a situation where they just need to pretty much stand pat and not add any additional obligations. Any cutting they can do is a bonus, so saving roughly $5M/year for 2017 and 2018 by putting Puig and McCarthy in a deal for Braun should get the commissioner's approval. As for the Brewers, they have plenty of payroll room to take some high-priced / short-term contracts back as long as that means they get some really good prospects back in return. They then just have to hope that the veterans play well enough to be flipped at the deadline, and their already strong farm system will be even stronger with the high-end prospect additions. But there's little reason for the Brewers to do this unless the Dodgers throw in some really good prospects.

Probably not a huge consideration. He seems to live a pretty casual life for someone rolling in $100mil+. I honestly think it comes down to location and then well after that winning. You are going to be pretty hard pressed to get him to accept a deal to the Astros. In his mind it is probably Miami, west coast, or Milwaukee. He has a family and they like Milwaukee. To get him to leave it will actually have to be a place he wants to be outside of just playing baseball. I don't really see him waiving the no trade clause. Also for the record a move to Texas wouldn't save him all that much. Probably about $3mil-$5mil saved from playing home games in Texas instead of Wisconsin. Of course he would be playing away games in different states which could/would move that number higher/lower. I guess we have a different opinion of what "all that much" is :-) Players do pay state tax based on the state in which they are playing each game, but just on the 81 home games, a player making $100,000,000 would save (simple computation) $3,825,000. Wisconsin is a high tax state, with a top rate of 7.65% vs 0% for Texas. This doesn't seem to be Braun's biggest concern, but it could be considered.

If money means anything to him, Braun could save millions of dollars in taxes by going to Texas over Wisconsin or California.

I have no problem if the team goes into the season with the plan of giving him a month or so to prove himself before calling up the prospects, but I wouldn't tell him that... especially the part about doing it to add a year's service time to the prospects. Teams do that stuff all the time, but actually telling a player "you're here for a month so we can gain a year's service time on another guy" has Player Union issues written all over it. Besides that, after getting sent to the minors this year he should know that he has to pitch well or he's going to be replaced. No one in the opening day rotation should feel overconfident about his long-term role as a Major League starter. They all need to work really hard so that they aren't the one getting the ax when more talented pitchers join the team.

I guess the mods didn't like my first reply, but this thread isn't serious. Everyone here, even Briggs who started it, understands it would never happen and its just a "for fun" thread in the dead of the offseason. Wait, you don't think I was serious when I called for us to sign Bautista, Encarnacion and Jansen and trade for Sale and Quintana this offseason :-)

I thought of him too, but I would suggest against trying to field a team with only outfielders on the roster :-)

Sign Bautista, Encarnacion and Jansen. Make trwi's White Sox trade for Sale and Quintana Lineup: 1) Villar 2B 2) Broxton/Brinson CF 3) Braun LF 4) Bautista RF 5) Encarnacion 3B 6) Carter 1B 7) Arcia SS 8) Susac/Pina C 9) Pitcher SP) Sale SP) Quintana SP) Davies SP #4/5) Two of Nelson, Peralta, Anderson, Guerra, Garza CL) Jansen SU) Thornburg Make up rest of pen from what we have If Attanasio wants the playoffs so badly, he can put a lien against some of his assets for what would probably be a $140-150M or so payroll. That lineup ought to have a shot at the playoffs for a year or two before everything would collapse and we'd be horrible for the next decade or so.

If I'm going to give up a draft pick and sign a guy who is on the wrong side of 30 to a 5-year, big money deal, he'd better be someone better than Justin Turner. I don't think whoever signs Turner is going to be happy with how it ends up. As to the prospect-for-good-pitcher trade, that's kind of the opposite of how Stearns seems to work. He likes to get guys early and let them grow into really valuable commodities. At some point, when we have a good MLB roster and so many good prospects that we're likely to start losing some to Rule 5 (like the situation the Astros were in in 2015), then we'll probably see some prospects traded. Until then, I doubt we'll see our top prospects getting traded away.