monty57

This wouldn't work at all, in fact it would hurt the Brewers. It is the only sport with a real minor league system which makes the idea not tenable regardless. I was going to keep out the salary cap part, as it's really unnecessary. If all TV revenue was shared equally (i.e. the money was pooled and doled out equally to all teams, so no one got more TV revenue than anyone else), there would be no Large market / Small market concerns. The difference in ticket sales, merchandise, etc is miniscule compared to the difference in TV deals. I still think Selig was on to something when he made all internet revenue shared equally. Eventually, I hope local TV deals are a thing of the past, as we eventually move to everything being viewed online. But this is probably all better served for another thread.

In re-reading my posts, it kind of sounds like I'm talking both sides of the argument, so I'll try to clarify. If we have a continual stream of average-to-above average guys coming up from the farm, that keeps the payroll down, allowing for us to sign some players in free agency. I don't think we should build our foundation on free agency, but rather fill in where needed. We have some good pitching coming up through the minors (better than I can ever remember), so we could have most of our rotation filled from guys who are currently "Brewer property." Because of all the young, cheaper guys, we could afford to make a huge signing. It may not happen, but we could do it, and it probably wouldn't cripple us long-term as long as we maintain a strong farm. The more likely scenario (in my opinion) is that we sign a good pitcher who is coming into his prime who may not classify as an "ace" (there are few guys who do), but could be our #1 or 2 starter to go along with the talented young guys. If some of the young guys hit their ceiling, then I'd be happy to have a 30-year-old Parker or Chapman as our #3. Ideally, if things went really well, by the time the 29-year-old FA we sign gets to be 31 or 32, we will have in house replacements allowing us to trade him away and continue to bring in youth, even when we're competitive. That youth could then be used to replace someone in the future, allowing us to keep a lower payroll by cycling older, proven talent that is becoming expensive for younger, unproven talent with more team control. This "continual cycle" strategy may seem far-fetched, but I think that's what Stearns intends to try, and I'm looking forward to seeing if he can pull it off.

Where would the Cubs be without their FA SP additions? Wasn't Lester the only FA signing, or at least the only big one? I believe the rest came over in fairly unheralded deals that have turned out very well for them. If we can find most of our starters elsewhere, in our case mostly coming up from the minors, then signing one bigger deal, even if as I mentioned earlier it's a guy like Parker or Chapman and not some probably unattainable "true ace" like Bumgarner or Kershaw, then we could have a playoff-caliber rotation. Same is true of our offense. Most of our guys will likely come from the farm or from deals like the ones where we got Villar or Broxton. However, if we can't find someone at a position, hopefully with good payroll management, we will be able to fill in some holes via free agency or "salary dump" trades as Reilly mentioned. I don't dislike free agency, you just generally can't get undervalued player there, so they have to come from other places. When we're ready to hit the FA market, I hope we target guys who will be on the team for a good part of their prime, instead of signing guys who are already past their prime and hoping they'll defy nature and play well into their mid-30s. I also hope we keep a continual stream of prospects coming up, as paying them league minimum is how we will be able to keep payroll low enough that we can eventually dip into the FA market when needed. It also means that we're probably trading away some guys who are getting expensive to restock the farm and replacing them with the inexpensive guys from the farm.

It's funny. As I watch playoff baseball and see a throw to the plate from the OF, I just expect that there will be a runner halfway between third and home. Then I see the runner safely standing on third base and remember that not every team employs Ed Seder.

I'm expecting a hard salary cap and/or equally shared TV revenue among all the teams [/wishful thinking] In reality, I'm sure the players would like to get the draft pick compensation taken out of the qualifying offer, as that has hurt some "2nd tier" veteran FAs get deals. They'd probably have to give up a lot to get that, so I don't know what the owners would get in return.

I'm not ready after next season to throw 25 million for 7 years and a first round pick at a 31 year old Yu Darvish or Lance Lynn. I'd rather they give shots to Wilkerson, Woodruff, Ortiz to see if they got something useful there. I agree the scenario has to be right. Don't sign a big deal just to sign one, but making a big play when it looks right would make sense. Like you, I don't want to sign a 31-year old to a 7-year deal. The problem is always going to be that only a few guys you'd like will be free agents every year, and there isn't always a match-up that fits perfectly into your team's schedule. That's probably why the Cubs signed Lester before anyone thought they were ready to compete. He was available, and they figured he'd be on their team when they were ready. That's why, while I don't expect it, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the Brewers spend some money in FA this offseason if the right guy is available. As to who could be a starting pitcher they could go after in the offseason prior to 2018, I don't really want to completely derail the thread, but an example could be someone like Tyler Chatwood, who will be a 28-year old FA going into 2018, or Jarrod Parker who will be 29.

Gillaspie was the 20th overall pick just 2 seasons ago. That he was selected two seasons ago might be why he'd be more expensive than we may be willing to pay. He won't need to be protected, so the Rays don't have a need to trade him. He's still young, so even if they don't need him on the MLB roster to start the season, he's good insurance if they are indeed trying to make a playoff run in 2017, and they're in the AL, so they have an extra spot where they could use his bat. That said, I think he (or someone like him) is a good guy to take a look at to see his price tag. We could use a good 1B prospect in the high minors. The Rays under Friedman would probably never give him up, but he's not there any more, so maybe the current regime puts more value on getting MLB guys for prospects. Note: when I went to the Rays' MLB site to look at their roster, there's an article on Gillaspie being named their MiLB Player of the Year.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. However when the time comes to compete and that guy isn't there what are you going to do? Nothing? Nope, you are either trading for one or buying one. You surely aren't sitting on your hands hoping he just pops up while you waste away good seasons. Yea, and it doesn't need to be an "either/or." Hopefully they can develop one, better yet two or three really good SP. That doesn't mean they still can't or shouldn't go out and try to get an ace, TOR, #1, whatever you want to call it. They will have a ton of money to spend, especially if they move Braun. At some point you have to go "all in" especially when you're just spending money to do it, instead of trading a bunch of top talent to get that pitcher. I agree with this. Just as an example, let's say Peralta, Davies and Nelson look good next year plus Hader comes up and performs well, so going into 2018 we have what looks to be a fairly solid rotation, with a base payroll around $65,000,000. We could add a $25,000,000 stud at the top-of-the rotation and still have room in the payroll for future raises and additions, especially if we're willing to trade away some "proven" guys with higher salaries when prospects are ready to come up and play for league minimum. I wouldn't even call this "all in," which to me connotes that we are going for it today at the expense of tomorrow. I don't want to see that, but I think that in the not-too-distant future they should be in a situation where they can play for "today" while still building for "tomorrow." As you mentioned, spending money while still remaining well under the Brewers' likely payroll max is well within reason, and none of the future (prospects) have to be sacrificed to win "today." Note: the above is just an example of what could be. It's meant to be theoretical, and a lot of the pieces could be changed to try to make the puzzle work.

That's a big reason why I want him back. I've probably seemed overly stoic in defense of Carter in my posts earlier in the thread, but much of that is because I don't think he'll get anywhere near $8M. The guys I looked at who seem to be good comps have me believing he should be closer to $5M if he goes to arby. At around that price, I think they should do the deal. The Brewers are still in the rebuild stage, but after a promising year this year (better than most expected), I'd hate to see the Brewers take a big step back next year. If Carter's "true open market value" is something like $4M, and we pay him $5-6M, I'm fine with that, and I'm kind of a tightwad when it comes to money. :-) We have a decent option at first base. If we dump him for nothing, then Stearns needs to either stand pat with someone like Pinto, which could turn out really bad, or he needs to spend some of our remaining resources on an upgrade (i.e. make sure to include a first baseman in a trade). Unless he has someone in mind, and a deal gets done quickly, I think the safe bet is to just re-sign Carter for a season. Hopefully during that season, our OF prospects do well enough that moving Santana to first base can happen, and that would give us stronger ground to stand on next offseason when deciding what to do with Carter (if he isn't traded at the deadline). All that said, the guys who put together the projections listed in the opening post are smart people. If the Brewers realistically think that Carter would win an arby case at $8M+, then it makes the decision a lot tougher. I just hope the final decision isn't "he's our best option but we don't want to pay him that much, so we'll dump him and go with Pinto." I think the Brewers want to get better in 2017, not significantly worse, and I think fans would revolt if we dump a controllable reigning HR champ and replace him with a "no name" just to save money when the team has the lowest payroll in the league. If so, that could cost them far more than what they'd pay for Carter over the "no name."

Does paying Chris Carter on extra $2-$3mil help sell tickets or make fans happier? This isn't about dumping him or tendering him a contract. This is about tendering him a contract that could be $8mil or non tendering him and resigning him for less, say $5.5mil. I am guessing the only reason non tendering him isn't a no brainer is the fact on the open market some team could offer him a two year deal. Through arbitration talks they could probably get him for $7mil while a strong market could hypothetically force the Brewers to pay 2/$10mil(just a random number). Maybe they don't want him another two years as they are planning to move an OFer to 1B for 2018(another hypothetical situation). Once a player becomes a free agent, he gains the right to turn a team down. If the Brewers non-tender him solely to save money, then he could rightly be upset which would hurt the Brewers' chance of getting him to re-sign. I'm not as knowledgeable about the rules as some on this board, but I believe the Brewers have the opportunity to offer him a deal before offering him arbitration, so they should get an idea as to whether he is willing to sign for a lesser deal. If no deal is done, and they decline to offer him arby, he becomes a free agent. If he wouldn't sign for a lesser deal prior to arby, then the Brewers are riding the hope that no other team in baseball is interested. If that risk doesn't pay off, then we're scrambling to find a first baseman or we're going to be back to playing shortstops and catchers at first base. Whatever your feelings about how bad his bat is, I would bet he'll do better than Pinto, and probably better than Perez. Plus, if we move Perez there, he isn't available to play third, or wherever else we might want him, weakening that position. OPS+ is, I believe, park adjusted. It has Carter at 114 for 2016, 102 for 2015, 123 for 2014, 112 career. Those numbers don't surprise me, based on my prior knowledge of him. It's quite reasonable to say that he was about at his career norms last year. I don't think it's reasonable to say that he didn't bounce back last year from a subpar 2015. Thank you for the response. Adding to that, OPS+ doesn't consider the number of PAs. In 2015, the Astros benched him because he was hitting below .200, so he only ended up with 391 ABs. Getting benched by a playoff team and ending up with a .199 avg is certainly enough to hurt a player's free agent value. Following that up with an .821 OPS season, even if that OPS is SLG heavy, while playing nearly every day is enough to bring that free agent value back up. Again, I'm not saying he's an All Star, but he's an above-average bat who would likely get scooped up if the Brewers let him become a free agent. If we drop from .903 OPS Braun to .750 OPS Puig, and replace .821 OPS Carter with someone who doesn't pan out, we could really quickly have a bad offense.

I personally believe that Melvin decided a couple of years before Attanasio that a rebuild was in order, so the only dead meat left hanging by the time Attanasio decided a rebuild was necessary were two FA deals Melvin was against, Lohse and Garza. Meanwhile, Lucroy and Gomez were steals. Whether Melvin foresaw something, got lucky, or a little of both, those two signings right before the players broke out are a big reason the Brewers turn around should be a lot quicker than most. I think you're a season early on the TOR free agent, but I agree that when the time comes we should be able to make a play for one. I'm thinking next offseason, when Garza and likely Carter are off the books and more of our better prospects are on the MLB roster.

Villar is a switch hitter. If he's replacing Gennett, the lost LHB of Gennett isn't a loss Villar was in the lineup already, so the person replacing Gennett would be whoever the find to play 3B. If that is Perez, then it's also whoever gets most of the corner OF PAs. I agree that we shouldn't put a lot of emphasis on RH/LH at this point, and I agree that we should have plenty of LH bats coming up through the ranks.

and because he played at Miller Park Minute Maid Park (or whatever the Astros' stadium is now called) isn't really a bad place for RH hitters to hit.

That's because it's not the case. The Brewers' payroll decisions this year have little to no effect on their payroll decisions a few years from now, obviously except for anyone that's signed to a multi-year contract. That's the beauty of arbitration and non-guaranteed contracts. I don't agree. Every owner is different. I think MA is willing to run the Brewers in a fashion that he isn't trying to make money currently, just cash flow enough. You make your money when you sell the franchise. He realizes that the more surplus you generate in 2017, you can then use to pay down your acquisition debt or acquire revenue generating assets, or a host of ways that will allow you to spend more in 2019 when you are competing for a postseason spot. I think we already have seen that he is willing to deficit spend when the team has postseason chances. He couldn't have made money in the couple of highest payroll years a few years back. I'd guess that the reason the ownership group decided to do a large "capital improvement" right now (before 12-31-2016) is that the team made a big profit this year and the owners don't want to pay taxes on it. Profits and losses for an LLC flow directly to the owners, so they would be on the hook for paying those taxes. That leads to the owners pulling the money out of the LLC in order to cover the taxes. Paying down debt is a good thing to do, but it is not an expense, so the taxes would still be due. The "capital improvement" can be expensed now (or at least part of the depreciation can be) and should increase revenue when the payroll is higher. Payroll is a deductable expense (a large one), so this is how it possibly relates to Carter: He helps sell some tickets and keeps the fans a little bit happier in a period when there is some excess revenue ("Chicks dig the long ball"). An extra million paid to him is a million gone, but the owners would lose around half of that in taxes anyhow, so it's not as big a hit as it would be if they were in a different situation. The positive of keeping a better fan experience means more fans are retained through the "down years" so they don't have to try to get them back when things start to look brighter. A large worry during any rebuild is the loss of ticket sales (revenue). If Carter is too expensive, they won't want him, but if he's a bit overpriced it's not a big deal. That much money would be lost by the fans who don't buy tickets when they see we cut the NL home run champ in order to save a few bucks by giving the playing time to Josmil Pinto and Martin Maldonado. Throw in that many will see a Braun trade as a salary dump, and any goodwill generated by a decent season this year will be lost. I'm as big a fan of this rebuild as anyone, but if the lineup next year is Villar, Broxton, Perez, Santana, Pinto, Nieuwenhuis/Reed, Arcia, Maldonado, pitcher, I'll find better things to do with my time. Thankfully that won't happen, because the Brewers won't dump something of value for nothing in return.

People can keep thinking Chris Carter should demand Alvarez/Jaso money, but a year ago that was not the case and little has changed for any of the three players. Yes it has. Carter 2015: .199 avg / .307 OBP / .427 SLG / .734 OPS - he had a horrible year Carter 2016: .222 avg / .321 OBP / .499 SLG / .821 OPS - he raised his OPS by .087 points. That's a lot. Carter was a good bounceback candidate and he bounced back. No one is saying that he's a great player, but he's far from the worst 1B in the majors. Looking at 1B with at least 400 PA, here are a few guys Carter could probably be comped to: Brandon Moss (.784 OPS, 0.8 WAR) - $6.5M Eric Hosmer (.761 OPS, 1.0 WAR)- $5.65M (5 yrs service) Mike Napoli (.800 OPS, 1.0 WAR) - $16M Mitch Moreland (.720 OPS, 0.7 WAR) - $2.95M (6 yrs service) Marwin Gonzales (.694 OPS, 1.2 WAR) - $1.062M (4 years service) John Jaso (.766 OPS, 1.0 WAR) - $3.175M and here are a few other guys who were given over 400 PA at first, showing why Carter would be in demand: Yonder Alonzo (.683 OPS, -0.1 WAR) - $1.65M Ryan Zimmerman (.642 OPS, -1.1 WAR) - $14M Adam Lind (.717 OPS, -0.3 WAR) - $7.5M Mark Teixeira (.654 OPS, -0.6 WAR) - $23.125M There were only 25 guys with 400 or more PA, so that leaves five teams who didn't have someone who could log 2/3 of a season at the position, and that doesn't include retiring or replaceable players and all the AL teams that may want him as a DH. He's power driven, and has some warts, but all that combined make him around the middle of the pack for MLB first baseman, and he certainly would be in demand as a free agent this offseason. I'm not sure that he's worth $8M, but the important thing is that he's likely the best option the Brewers have for first base in 2017, and there is no one in the system he's blocking. I'd be willing The $8M number listed above is a guess. I think it's probably high, but we'll have to wait and see. If it goes to arbitration, it's about showing comparable players and what they're making. Arby is supposed to be cheaper than free agency, so the player should be comped to other guys in the arby years, or discounted vs a free agent contract. Hosmer is probably a good comp, with 5 years service time and a $5.65M price tag. Carter's agent would stress the positives and the Brewers would stress the negatives, but if Hosmer is the comp, I think $8M would be too much. Regardless, if he's worth $5.65M I'd be willing to overspend by a million or two, since we'd otherwise be scrambling to find a competent first baseman. By this time next year, hopefully some of our OFs will have made the transition to the majors and Santana can be moved to first, filling the position for a few seasons. But for now, Carter seems to be the best option.

Carter -kind of surprised it's this high after making $2.5M this year. Maybe not worth it, but he's the best option the Brewers have so I expect him to be re-signed, especially since it's only a one-year commitment. The "we'll check the market" talk from Stearns could be bargaining leverage as we get into contract negotiation season. Peralta - I really hope the 2nd half is for real. He's now a no-brainer to re-up, so let's hope he doesn't turn into a frog. Anderson - $3.1M seems a bit much for first year of arby after a so-so season, but maybe I'm just getting old. Still, it's not too much to pay for an innings-eater until the prospects are ready. If he can just be a decent middle-to-back of the rotation starter, he could give us some needed innings and get traded when he becomes expendable. Gennett - good as gone. Hopefully Stearns can get either a Lind- or Rogers-type return for him Thornburg - $2.2M for a high-K closer is so cheap he might not make it to opening day as a Brewer if the market for relievers is still hot Torres - He'll be here... maybe as closer (see Thornburg above). Part of our path to future success is getting a bunch of middle relievers, promoting the good ones to set-up, then closer, and trade them once they're "proven" closers. Since a 1/2 season for a set-up man or closer now seems to be worth a potential top-of-the-rotation starting prospect, this seems like a good model until the market corrects. Maldonado - I'd rather save a million with Pina/Susec Nieuwenhuis - the jury's out until we see what happens with Braun. If Braun is traded, we may need a warm MLB-ready body on the roster until they're ready to promote Brinson. Kirk isn't exciting, but he's a lot better than most of the "trash heap" guys we threw out there this year.

Except they are outfielders where power is harder to get there. Chris Carter was 8/23 for qualified 1B in the SLG department. On the other hand Davis/Trumbo sat at 9/54 for qualified OFers in the SLG department. This means for SLG: 35% of 1B were better than Carter 17% of OFers were better than Davis/Trumbo Also: 16/23 or 69% of 1B had at least slugged .460 24/54 or 44% of OFers had at least slugged .460 So it is easy to come to the conclusion that Trumbo>Carter by a sizable margin and if Trumbo only got a 4A catcher what does that tell you about what Carter would likely get in return? I'd guess that Trumbo has increased his value this season and would net more than a 4A catcher if traded after the season. I would also guess that Carter has increased his value somewhat. He was horrible last season with a sub-.200 batting average, getting benched by a playoff team. His new price tag may reduce that value substantially, but purely as a player he looks better (at least less risky) now than he did a year ago.

Agreed. There is value to being a proven MLB player. For a team looking to compete that wants a 2B who won't implode, Scooter could be a decent fit. Stearns seems pretty good at digging up talent other teams overlook, as he has done in the Lind and Rogers trades, so I'm optimistic that he'll find a decent return for Gennett. In regards to Santana at first base, I agree that should be his eventual landing spot. However, Braun is likely to be traded and they'll probably want to start Brinson in AAA, so we need Santana in the OF right now. Re-signing Carter for a season allows Santana to play RF one more year until the young OFs are ready, and limits the PAs given to guys like Jake Elmore, Presley, Flores, and others who got OF playing time for the Brewers this year.

Per ESPN, Gennett is 21st of the 25 2B in the league in OPS (min 400 AB) and 23rd in WAR. Take that down to 300 AB and he's still 22nd in OPS, but moves down to 29th of 35 in WAR. There aren't many 2B in the league less valuable than him. Hopefully we can flip him in a Rogers-for-Broxton type deal and either start Perez or someone from outside the organization at third. Ideally, Stearns could find another Villar-type trade this offseason to pick up his 2017 3B, but regardless of where he comes from, it shouldn't be hard to find someone at third to replace Gennett's value. As to Carter, I'd imagine he'll be a Brewer in 2017. He won't be that expensive, he brings some excitement, and the Brewers don't really have any other options at first.

I predict I will be very tired of living amongst Cub fans. Was anyone aware that "game one" is on tonight, because everyone around here seems to feel the need to shout it out at every opportunity.

It's an even year, so I'll pick the Giants.

Good point Reilly. When the bottom half of your order is something like Elmore, Flores, Maldonado, pitcher, that's a whole lot of rally killing. So is running out SPs who are giving up around six runs per nine innings. It should be easier for a sub-.500 team to gain wins from one season to the next than it is for a good team to gain wins simply because the bad team probably has more "replacement level" guys. Simply replacing some of these guys with "league average" guys should make the team much better. When you start replacing them with good players is when you start talking about the playoffs.

My simple brain would just say that you can flip a coin 100 times and end up with all kinds of different outcomes, even though at the outset odds say that you should end up with 50 heads and 50 tails. The end result doesn't change anything, and the next time you flip the same coin 100 times, you will likely get a different result. And that's with a coin, which only has two possible outcomes, where baseball has hundreds of pitches thrown every game, each with many possible outcomes. In baseball, if you could possibly play the same season over 100 times, you would end up with different results every time, even though the opening day lineups remained constant. The most talented teams would end up on top most of the time, but there would be outliers where the best teams don't make the playoffs while less talented teams do. The weird thing would be if any two seasons ended up exactly the same. The odds of that happening would have to be crazy. But that's good, because if they ever come up with a formula that could correctly pick who would win and lose every game no one would care to watch.

Agree. Some of our extra wins came because we were playing talented guys who may not have gotten a shot in a "go for it" year. After poor starts, Broxton and Peralta could easily have been thrown out to pasture, but they were given another shot and made the most of it. If they figured things out and can play at a high level in future years, they are worth far more than a few draft spots. Villar and Carter likely weren't getting a shot on a winning team's opening day roster, but given everyday playing time they have increased their value. Whether they help the future Brewers on the playing field or in trade is yet to be seen, but their getting playing time in 2016 will help future Brewer teams more than moving up a couple of draft spots. Guerra would never have broken the starting rotation in a "go for it" year. Davies may have been relegated to the bullpen like Thornburg was when he came up. Letting these guys pitch in the starting rotation in 2016 helps the Brewers' future far more than moving up a few draft places. There are others, like Gennett being allowed to face LHP, Perez getting a large number of PAs at multiple positions, letting Jeffress close instead of signing a "proven" guy, and then trading him and Smith and letting Thornburg close. None of these moves were done in order to "win now," but all of them helped us win more games this year than we were expected to win, and should make us better in the future. I don't see how people could think this is bad in any way. I'm sure we lost some extra games because we were trying to see if someone like Flores could put it together, and those moves didn't pan out. That's what this year was about... seeing which guys would be part of the future and which wouldn't. It was never about "tanking" and getting the top draft spot. It's far more meaningful to find a Broxton or Davies who can break out on the MLB stage than to get the #3 spot instead of the #5 spot. In past seasons, when we had a horrible farm and a bleak future, I hated seeing the late-season surge that cost us draft positions and gave management hope that all it would take was another over the hill FA SP and we'd be a playoff team. Things are different now, and I think this season played out as well as could be expected.

I agree. While we all knew that we weren't a playoff team this year, I think most of us hoped we would see some young guys step forward that could help us in the future, and that we would see some guys who won't be part of the future stay healthy and play well enough to net us something in trade. That happened, we are a much more talented franchise from top to bottom, and that will eventually lead to good baseball at the MLB level. Meanwhile, we do get to see exciting baseball while we wait for the next playoff team. I know it shouldn't matter, but I'd rather see a young, inexpensive, athletic team go 73-89 than an old, slow, expensive team go 73-89. Throw in a "top 2" farm system instead of a "bottom 2" farm system, and I'm optimistic about the future.