Brewcrew82

Right, which is why I'm acknowledging that a deal isn't likely from the start. But at least show the fans you genuinely tried, as opposed to the current situation, which is that the team has yet to even approach him. Who knows, you might even get lucky like Cleveland did with Ramirez.

At minimum, I would like to see the Brewers make a genuine effort before actually going ahead and trading him. That deal would qualify as that.

At minimum, I would like to see the Brewers make a genuine effort before actually going ahead and trading him. That deal would qualify as that.

If the Brewers gave him Yelich's deal (maybe a year or two less), I think he'd actually accept it. as he genuinely seems to enjoy playing here. I'd be fine offering it, too, as I think Burnes is that special of a talent. But it's not my money or risk....

If the Brewers gave him Yelich's deal (maybe a year or two less), I think he'd actually accept it. as he genuinely seems to enjoy playing here. I'd be fine offering it, too, as I think Burnes is that special of a talent. But it's not my money or risk....

This is so the wrong perspective and a potentially lethal one to this franchise were Arnold and Attanasio to adopt it. Accept a "light" return for Burnes, the best statistical pitcher in baseball over the past three years with two whole seasons of control, because MAYBE they might be able to scrounge out a little more value than expected in a trade of Renfroe, Ruiz, Mitchell, etc.??? Though I like Ruiz and, especially, Gasser, did we learn absolutely nothing from the Hader trade and this year's deadline?? If the Brewers can't get a better deal than Mullins and some lesser prospects, then ride full-steam into next season with the best 1-2 rotation punch in baseball (assuming DeGrom does leave NY).

This is so the wrong perspective and a potentially lethal one to this franchise were Arnold and Attanasio to adopt it. Accept a "light" return for Burnes, the best statistical pitcher in baseball over the past three years with two whole seasons of control, because MAYBE they might be able to scrounge out a little more value than expected in a trade of Renfroe, Ruiz, Mitchell, etc.??? Though I like Ruiz and, especially, Gasser, did we learn absolutely nothing from the Hader trade and this year's deadline?? If the Brewers can't get a better deal than Mullins and some lesser prospects, then ride full-steam into next season with the best 1-2 rotation punch in baseball (assuming DeGrom does leave NY).

This is an entirely different situation than in 2017-2018. That club was trying to transition to a contender and added Yelich and Cain to power that transition in light of a relative surplus of payroll space. This club, as presently constituted, is already a contender and is looking to continue its run of success in the long-term, yet also has to deal with a huge contingent of arbitration eligible players that is beginning to really push the envelope in terms of payroll. Mullins and Santander, while above average players, aren't needle movers contention-wise given that we would be parting with statistically the best pitcher in baseball to acquire them. And it's not like they would provide payroll relief either given that both are now arbitration eligible and will be getting more expensive by the year. Mullins, in particular, could be a real danger as he's going to get paid a lot due to his 2021 season, despite that season being a real statistical outlier relative to his career numbers and batted-ball metrics. I'm not even sure that Santander is a guaranteed upgrade over any of our current outfielders, given his atrocious defensive stats. You say that it comes down to making the "right decisions". Well, I can tell you right away that trading Burnes for a package headlined by/involving Mullins or Santander isn't the right decision and could really set this franchise back in the long-term. If we're going to trade an absolute premium of a talent such as Burnes with two whole years of control left, we're going to need to receive premium talent in return. So, start with Rodriguez or Holliday or proceed to hang up the phone as nobody else the Orioles could give us (other than Rutschman or Henderson) will make a trade of Burnes worth it imo.

This is an entirely different situation than in 2017-2018. That club was trying to transition to a contender and added Yelich and Cain to power that transition in light of a relative surplus of payroll space. This club, as presently constituted, is already a contender and is looking to continue its run of success in the long-term, yet also has to deal with a huge contingent of arbitration eligible players that is beginning to really push the envelope in terms of payroll. Mullins and Santander, while above average players, aren't needle movers contention-wise given that we would be parting with statistically the best pitcher in baseball to acquire them. And it's not like they would provide payroll relief either given that both are now arbitration eligible and will be getting more expensive by the year. Mullins, in particular, could be a real danger as he's going to get paid a lot due to his 2021 season, despite that season being a real statistical outlier relative to his career numbers and batted-ball metrics. I'm not even sure that Santander is a guaranteed upgrade over any of our current outfielders, given his atrocious defensive stats. You say that it comes down to making the "right decisions". Well, I can tell you right away that trading Burnes for a package headlined by/involving Mullins or Santander isn't the right decision and could really set this franchise back in the long-term. If we're going to trade an absolute premium of a talent such as Burnes with two whole years of control left, we're going to need to receive premium talent in return. So, start with Rodriguez or Holliday or proceed to hang up the phone as nobody else the Orioles could give us (other than Rutschman or Henderson) will make a trade of Burnes worth it imo.

Also, why on earth would the Brewers want Santander and/or Mullins? Like this team needs more outfielders, especially ones that are in their late 20s and are already arbitration-eligible.

Also, why on earth would the Brewers want Santander and/or Mullins? Like this team needs more outfielders, especially ones that are in their late 20s and are already arbitration-eligible.

If the Orioles do declare that Rodriguez and Holliday are off limits, then they’re not getting Burnes, a top 3 (if not THE) top pitcher in baseball. It’s as simple as that. I’m not trading Burnes just for the sake of trading him while he still has two years of control. He’s got a specific value, and a team is going to have to meet or exceed that value. Otherwise, let’s go run it back with perhaps the best 1-2 punch in baseball.

If the Orioles do declare that Rodriguez and Holliday are off limits, then they’re not getting Burnes, a top 3 (if not THE) top pitcher in baseball. It’s as simple as that. I’m not trading Burnes just for the sake of trading him while he still has two years of control. He’s got a specific value, and a team is going to have to meet or exceed that value. Otherwise, let’s go run it back with perhaps the best 1-2 punch in baseball.

Interesting, I think his power surge this season in AAA is for real and that he looks like the second-coming of Nico Hoerner, but with better on-base skills. He's always been a guy about whom it's been said, "If he develops power, look out."

Interesting, I think his power surge this season in AAA is for real and that he looks like the second-coming of Nico Hoerner, but with better on-base skills. He's always been a guy about whom it's been said, "If he develops power, look out."

Actually, if we're going to extend anyone, I think we'd want it to be Burnes. But Mark is a cheapie so that's that.

Actually, if we're going to extend anyone, I think we'd want it to be Burnes. But Mark is a cheapie so that's that.

A) The Brewers have a specific value that they've designated for each of their players. Either a team meets that value or it doesn't. We shouldn't settle for merely a "solid" offer with both of these guys two whole years from free agency. Otherwise, you're just setting things up for failure. B) Again a five year deal such as what Castillo and Wheeler got would take Woodruff to his age 35 season. There is no reason to think that his age 33-35 years would turn out to be "dead weight", even if they're not as productive as his prime years. But simply saying baseball is a "young man's game" is ignoring how many of the best pitchers in baseball over in recent seasons have been in their 30s. Guys like Verlander, Lance Lynn, etc. are very similar to Woodruff in build and arsenal. I'll take the assurance of having an ace over the next several years over gambling that we can replicate our success with Burnes, Peralta, and Woodruff with another team's prospects.

A) The Brewers have a specific value that they've designated for each of their players. Either a team meets that value or it doesn't. We shouldn't settle for merely a "solid" offer with both of these guys two whole years from free agency. Otherwise, you're just setting things up for failure. B) Again a five year deal such as what Castillo and Wheeler got would take Woodruff to his age 35 season. There is no reason to think that his age 33-35 years would turn out to be "dead weight", even if they're not as productive as his prime years. But simply saying baseball is a "young man's game" is ignoring how many of the best pitchers in baseball over in recent seasons have been in their 30s. Guys like Verlander, Lance Lynn, etc. are very similar to Woodruff in build and arsenal. I'll take the assurance of having an ace over the next several years over gambling that we can replicate our success with Burnes, Peralta, and Woodruff with another team's prospects.

Did you not read what I said? A Burnes extension is probably out of our wheelhouse, so I'm fine with trading him for the sort of big-armed starter prospect that you refer to. HOWEVER, wouldn't it be logical, if possible, to lock up a guy such as Woodruff who we already know is one of the top starters in the game for 5 more years through his age 35 season? The Phillies literally did the same thing in FA with Wheeler, a very similar pitcher to Woodruff I would point out, and look how well that's turned out for them. Woodruff's prime will almost certainly extend through the first couple of seasons of such a deal, where he will likely rack up a ton of WAR, and then even in the later seasons, he should still be an very effective pitcher judging by his repertoire and build. It's not like we would be extending him until he's 37 or 38, which is more of a danger zone. Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players.

Did you not read what I said? A Burnes extension is probably out of our wheelhouse, so I'm fine with trading him for the sort of big-armed starter prospect that you refer to. HOWEVER, wouldn't it be logical, if possible, to lock up a guy such as Woodruff who we already know is one of the top starters in the game for 5 more years through his age 35 season? The Phillies literally did the same thing in FA with Wheeler, a very similar pitcher to Woodruff I would point out, and look how well that's turned out for them. Woodruff's prime will almost certainly extend through the first couple of seasons of such a deal, where he will likely rack up a ton of WAR, and then even in the later seasons, he should still be an very effective pitcher judging by his repertoire and build. It's not like we would be extending him until he's 37 or 38, which is more of a danger zone. Elite pitchers are aging very gracefully nowadays, perhaps even moreso than position players.

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud.

I disagree to the extent that they'll just go and "take the offer that makes the most sense." Either a team will meet the designated value for these players or they won't. What the Brewers should NOT do is trade those players just for the sake of trading them according to a specific timeline. That kind of mentality is how you set yourself up to come out on the losing end of trades, especially with two whole seasons of team control remaining. As for the Woodruff age argument against a potential extension, have we not recently seen an increasing number of elite starting pitchers maintain their dominance well into their mid to late 30s (Verlander, Scherzer, DeGrom, etc.)? There's no reason why Woodruff can't follow in their footsteps with his pitch mix, particularly, in light of his development of an elite changeup. And a 5 year extension along the lines of Luis Castillo would take him to his age 35 season, which isn't that old for a starting pitcher and would lock in his most productive remaining years during a time when we'll need a top of the rotation stud.

Yep. And it should be even more as Burnes is better and has a half-year extra of control.

Yep. And it should be even more as Burnes is better and has a half-year extra of control.