adambr2

Yep, it was the offense. Who is why the Brewers look like they may be changing offensive philosophies and why Yelich and Cain were big acquisitions. The bullpen post-Hader was actually very good as well. They may be thinking that Chacin added to a group of Anderson Davies, and Nelson in June, may be good enough, and it's possible to think one of Woodruff, Burnes or Ortiz may be a big contributor as well. It's a reasonable thought process. It would have been good enough last year if the offense hasn't tanked.

I don't think Cotton makes sense for the Brewers, I also don't think Santana makes sense for the A's. That said, Santana has worlds more value than Cotton...I have to think Cotton as a target would involve mid-level minor leaguers. I'd sure think so. There aren't too many 24 year old 870 OPS guys out there. Cotton is just barely over what we already have in the number 5 slot. Feels like people have been saying Santana is 24 for about 2 years, he was bound to have a birthday eventually -- he's 25. Otherwise true, Cotton for Santana alone isn't enough.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/reactions-to-and-effects-of-the-yu-darvish-deal.html Sounds like although we did offer something in the ballpark of 5/100, we weren't really competitive on Darvish and more in it as a price driver. Per Heyman and Rosenthal.

But would you give a 5-year contract? With the total amount being less than expected for 5 years, the 6th year shouldn’t matter. Yeah I mean he could have gotten 5/125 and no one would have batted an eye. 6/126 is obviously better for the team. Same argument people were making against Cain's 5th year when he could have gotten 4/80 and it would have not surprised many.

I hope not. Darvish wouldn't have cost a pick. Arietta sends one to the Cubs. I hope not too, just seems like it is going to happen... I'm thinking Arrieta is looking at 4/80 at this point. At best. Maybe 3/60 or 4/72.

How so? 6 years sounds like a lot but 21M per is far under even the most conservative projection.

He just isn't that good at this point where I'd be at all interested in him at 2/12. You'd probably also have to give up Villar for nothing just to free up the roster spot. He isn't the threat on the bases he once was and can't draw a walk. You could probably just make Hernan Perez the everyday 2B and get similar results with a little less average and a little more speed.

Yeah, again, just spitballing. My thinking was that the 7th year of control would be beneficial to the team (1+6) But after the 7 years is up you're probably in a situation where most free agents can only be afforded by the big spenders because the smaller ones will be using all their money to keep their own. But most contracts at that point would probably be bad ones anyway. Would love to hear some alternatives...

I'm not opposed to the Cain signing at all but I definitely give a rip about 2021 and 2022 because I plan on being a Brewer fan then and I would like to enjoy those seasons as much as I would like to enjoy this one. To each their own but Stearns had better care about 2021 and 2022 or he'd be ill suited for his job.

Spitballing, but I would see all of these as good things; 1) Less minor league control before Rule 5 eligibility, maybe 1 less year. 2) Significantly higher salaries at the Minor League levels. At least a living wage at every level, and year round paychecks. 3) Higher MLB minimum salary, around $1M, then rising with inflation. 4) Only 1 year of pre-arbitration salary at the minimum followed by 6 years of arbitration. 5) Team salary floor based on annual total revenue. 6) Performance based arbitration based on modern analytics and not outdated statistics. Players are guaranteed a percentage of all revenue agreed upon in the CBA. Arbitration salaries are based on performance for each individual player based on the division of the player's share of revenue after deductions of all free agent contracts and minimum $1M contracts (pre-arby players, arbitration eligible players who do not meet performance requirements for more than $1M.)

I'm trying to reconcile the apparent implication that there is in fact collusion with the statement that you feared this so JJ was signed quickly. Particularly when the reliever market hasn't really been strongly affected. Why would one fear and anticipate collusion? I also don't know that I necessarily agree that posters here are anti-labor and pro billionaire class, that certainly doesn't apply to me, and I'm a union member myself. But when you're talking the scale of money that most of us laborers will still never see in our lifetimes, it's certainly difficult to identify with that struggle. I'm far more sympathetic to the plight of your minor league clients whom neither side seemed that interested in negotiating a living wage for in the current CBA.

Honestly I'd just pull the offer to Yu and tell him we're dropping out at this point. It's pretty apparent by now that at worst he's just using our offer for leverage to try to get to where he really wants to go and has no intention of signing here. At best he's willing to come here but only for a premium. So it's either just a waste of our time, or bad business to be involved in a bidding war where we need to generously exceed the top offer just to be considered.

Ticket prices and hot dog prices have absolutely nothing to do with players salaries.....at least in that if you raise payroll, that doesn't directly lead to a raise in ticket prices. If you raise payroll and you sign a guy like Darvish and you win 95 games, THAT would lead to a raise ticket prices, but only because it's what the market would bear. They can't set ticket prices at a price point that nobody is going to pay. Do you think if the players never earned the rights to become free agents and the league was still making the same amount of money, but payrolls topped out around 30 million dollars that the owners would keep ticket prices and beer prices artificially low? Of course not. They charge what people are willing to pay to maximize revenue. Same reason why Jordan's cost hundreds of dollars but only cost 10 bucks to be made. Why isn't Nike selling them for 15 bucks? Because people are willing to pay 300 for them. It's the same reason that it's just asinine to "demonize" players as you put it for getting paid as much as they can, EVEN if they go on to struggle as was the case with Matt Garza. We weren't the only team offering Garza, a proven winner(at the time) a large contract. He had earned that. And then his body just simply didn't allow him to live up to it. But you start demonizing people for not saying, "no...really, don't give me 50 million, just give me 25, I can't promise you I'll be healthy," and you're being totally unrealistic. Garza was an intense competitor. I also realize there was a blip on his tenure here during the end of the '16 season, but nonetheless, he was an intense competitor who seemingly worked hard and just didn't have it anymore. But I hardly blame him for accepting the money. And if we sign Darvish(and don't win a WS in the next 2-3 years) I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of complaining about him in years 4-5...and even 6. But I don't know why sports is the only industry we're upset with the workers trying to maximize their value and blame THEM or in your words "demonize" them rather than the BILLIONAIRE owners who are making more than any player in the game...either year to year or in increasing equity. Lets turn it around. Has Mark A "earned"...what, 750 million dollars as owner of the Brewers? Forbes valued the team at 50 million dollars more from 16 to 17. Did he earn that? Should we demonize him for that? I don't begrudge anyone from maximizing their earning potential. I ROOT as a fan of the team for the team to make good decisions, but when the TEAM signs a guy like Garza, I don't blame him if it doesn't work out. Seems short sighted and frankly hypocritical to me as I KNOW I'd have taken that deal in a heartbeat. There are some good points here, and I certainly don't demonize guys who take top dollar and don't work out. If it's a bad deal (see: Suppan, Jeffrey), I'll blame the team for a bad business decision. From an economic standpoint, I understand that owners will charge the maximum they can of what people are willing to pay to maximize profits. I do think there are ways in which their pricing can be a little more fan friendly and still maximize profits, especislly with concessions, and the Atlanta Falcons were a great example of that this past year. From a personal standpoint; however, as a man working 60 hours per week to support a 5 person family, I have no patience for the violins that play on either side for either the players or owners pleading their cases anytime there is labor strife. My attitude -- fair or not is, you guys have a big enough pie to divide up made on our backs, you figure it out and don't involve us in any way. If they can't do that without a work stoppage, they won't be seeing me at the stadium anymore. Obviously, they have a lot of work to do in the next CBA. I don't think it's collusion, I think its partly next year's FA class, and partly the fact that GMs these days are just much better at valuation. Free agency, for the most part, sucks, especially at the high levels. We've been shrugging it off for years that getting a sour deal for the last few years of a long contract as just the way it is, but maybe GMs just aren't willing to do that anymore. It's like taking out a 6 year loan on a car that you know will break down after 3-4 and leave you stuck with the payments and no car. Dumb, right? But it's been happening in MLB for years. The system is broken and really needs an overhaul in the next CBA. The 6 years club control is fine and favorable to small markets, but I'd like to see more money in the early years rather than just minimum payments for 3 years, an outdated arbitration system for 3 more, and then the expectation that some dumb GM will pay you at age 30 for what you did 2-3 years ago. I'd also like to see much higher wages, at least a decent living wage, for minor leaguers, which neither side really seems to give a hoot about. While they fight about 9 figure contracts the majority of their prospective players live in buses at the poverty level, most of which will never wear an MLB uniform.

LOL, that is EXTREMELY subjective. Is Kemp "worth" the contract he got? Heyward? Cueto? Ellsbury? Those kind of contracts are moronic. Yeah, you can't suspend players for not signing contracts, obviously. But it's been predicted that these huge, long contracts couldn't continue, and this is probably the beginning of that. Free Agency is paying for past performance, for the money they should have gotten while their salaries were suppressed with team control/arb, so yes, Kemp was worth that contract. If the percentage of franchise revenue that goes to players' salaries goes down while franchise revenues go up, then the players are not receiving what they are worth. Salaries should climb along with revenues. Free agency is paying for past performance? Yikes, I hope not. Maybe 10 years ago, but any GM worth his salt these days should be putting the future way before the past when doling out contracts in free agency. Maybe that's part of the reason for the standoff, GMs don't want to pay for past performance anymore. I can guarantee Stearns is far more concerned with "what will this player do for the duration of this contract?" rather than "What did this player do with his last contract?"

This post comes about 6 months too late, but prior to last year's deadline, I was more on the side of being anti-rental. After all, controllable talent is the name of the game. Which got me to wondering, maybe that's become the name of the game to the degree where it's actually created an opportunity for buyers near the trade deadline for rentals. Seeing many useful late inning relievers such as Pat Neshek go for players well outside an organization's top 10 prospects seemed rather unique to last year. The only substantial return I can recall for a rental was for Darvish. I won't call Ryan Cordell "nothing", but the fact that he's an older prospect with a likely 4th OF trajectory more than likely played into the feeling that he was expendable. Neil Walker was basically acquired as a salary dump. Again, not really the time of year where this is going to apply, but based on his activity last summer, I wonder if Stearns and his team are currently seeing the same thing with an opportunity for cheap rentals. Part of the advantage of a deep system is having many of these spare parts around where it's feasible that he may like to use the time up to the end of July to see where we are at and then very inexpensively supplement the roster to patch weaknesses with rentals.

Corbin Burnes looks like a huge steal right now. Don't get me wrong, our long -term pitching drafting still looks atrocious but it certainly feels like it's trending in a better direction. I've always wondered how much pitcher development has to do with the pitcher himself and how much it has to do with coaching in the farm system.

Problem for Martinez is 1) He's 30. 2) He's a total defensive liability, so you're basically paying for a DH, and 3) GMs are much smarter and more analytical than in the past. In perspective, we just paid Lorenzo Cain 5/80, which many people still thought was an overpay. They're of similar age, and analytically, Cain is and has been the more valuable player overall. In an era of smarter GMs, Dombrowski is about the biggest sucker out there, so the Red Sox having the top offer at 5/125 doesn't surprise me. But Martinez is highly likely to end up being a bad contract whether it's for 5/125 or more.

I'll give an example, albeit a rough one. Say my wife and I marry at 25 with no retirement savings and buy a 100K house. We make a combined 50K net per year and want to retire at 45. We want to live off 25 net, just over 2K a month, which is difficult, but feasible. Its more feasible because mortgage payments will not figure into this for most of the exercise. Now with cost of living it gets a little tricky; obviously 25K doesn't buy you 20 years from now what it does today. So for simplicity I'll figure in neither that nor raises and promotions. Figuring in taxes and health insurance in retirement, we want 40K a year in retirement, which is partially taxable and partially tax sheltered in a Roth. So with the 4% rule, we'll need 1 million dollars for that. My wife and I combined contribute 10K to our respective 401Ks, fully matched dollar for dollar -- some companies as Homer mentioned are even more generous. This leaves us 15K annually for other investments. We'll spend the first 7 years aggressively putting all 15K toward the mortgage in extra principal payments, guaranteeing we own the house outright within 7 years. We'll delay having children until age 30-31 so the kids and the added expense they bring hit around the same time the house is paid off. After this, we'll put the extra 15K into a Roth IRA up to the maximum limits with the extra going into a traditional IRA. Assuming 6% returns on an average for all accounts we would hit our goal in exactly 20 years, accumulating 1.08M by age 45 and retiring.

Most people with a decent income can retire early if that's truly what they want. We've been conditioned to believe that you work til you're 65, hopefully have enough then and hopefully enjoy 20 years after that, but it doesn't have to be that way. Basically just comes down to how much in the short-term that you're willing to sacrifice to slash your monthly budget to the bone and invest everything into an early retirement. I wish I had had the same financial mindset when I was 18 that I do now because that would have definitely been a goal. Now I'm married and my spouse and I don't really have the same financial vision in that regard or it would certainly be still feasible.

Does it not seem like we have more high upside arms in the system than at any time in recent history, or is that just a product of better familiarity and us paying more attention to it than at any time before? Honestly curious about that -- it seems like we could build an entire pitching staff in 2020 off the arms we have on the farm right now, but some are bound to flop. I remember some degree of excitement off the last generation of farm arms -- Scarpetta, Bucci, Rivas, Heckathorn, Arnett, Peralta, etc. Etc. Judging by that list, it obviously did not turn out very well. Hopefully we get more Nelsons and Thornburgs this time.

I find it absolutely hilarious that either side can claim a moral high ground or try to garner public support with the sums of money they're fighting over when essentially every player in their minor league system is living in poverty. Neither could be bothered to negotiate even a living wage for them in the last CBA with so much bigger fish to fry. So they can spare us the act about caring about people. I lived through '94 even though I was 12, and at this point I really don't have any sympathy for either side. You can talk about economics and all that, but at the end of the day you've got billionaires and millionaires fighting over pieces of a multi billion dollar pie that they make on massive TV deals and by charging regular schmos like us just trying to pay our bills $20 for a spot to park in for 3 hours and $10 for a beer. So at this point I just throw my hands up and say you guys figure it out but don't look to the public for support, we provide the revenue and if you can't figure out how to divide it, I've got nothing. If there's a work stoppage of any sorts I hope attendance and TV ratings drop by 50% and then they can fight over half a pie instead of a full one.

He didn't pitch last year, his last comeback attempt with the Angels in 2016 was a disaster, he's 33 and it was 7 years ago that he last pitched effectively. He really isn't anything more than a name at this point.

Wonder how Santana would fare at 2nd?

No chance. He could hit .500 in spring training and wouldn't get an ounce of consideration for the opening day roster. He's a fast track candidate but at this point hasn't played above A ball. Best case scenario for him is to split time between High A and AA this year, start in AAA next year, and get a June or July 2019 call-up to not count 2019 as a full service year for him.

Meh, I'm happy with Albers, but they are similar deals. I would not have been upset if they added Oh too but I'm not unhappy either if they are done with the pen. I want guys like Williams, Peralta, and Houser to have opportunities to break out too because they're all potential candidates to do just that.