adambr2

With all the talk of the signings of free agent relievers, are we overlooking a potential pen weapon within our own system? It's been a long road back for Williams, but after a successful 2017 without setbacks for him, I think at age 26 it may be time to take the reins off and see if he can establish himself as a dominant late inning reliever in his own right. When right, he's got among the best stuff and most strikeout potential in the system. His future appears to be in the pen -- is a Hader 2017 type emergence from Williams out of the question in 2018? I think he should be given every opportunity in spring training to win a job in the pen, and I hope he does.

I disagree. The team does not have the starting pitching depth to justify keeping what is probably their most talented arm in the pen. Having Hader in the pen isn't going to matter if you don't have the starters to get to him. If they acquire a couple good starters, then you can make the argument that Hader should stay in the pen. Can you have 1 dominating pitch and nothing else and truly be the most talented? He has the biggest upside but if he doesn't develop his secondary stuff to get some strikes out of it he's not going to be more valuable in the rotation than he is in the pen. I dont think his issues allow him to be a productive starter as is and I dont think those issues require him to start to improve. So I'm with the other guy that sees no reason for him to start yet. He could come out this year and dominate. His secondary stuff could become useful and his pitches per inning could drop in his work in the pen and if that happens... next year he's gets a rotation slot. But a fastball, as nasty as his is, is still not enough to start and go 6-7ip. I agree. I think he'll need to improve his secondary pitches to reach his ceiling. Can he do that? Sure, maybe eventually, or maybe he'll be a career reliever in the Andrew Miller mold. But the vision some people have of him being a dominant Chris Sale 200 inning guy, it's just not going to happen right off the bat in 2018. They'll need to watch his innings, and there will be some growing pains. And the pen will certainly suffer from not having him in it for those crucial late high leverage innings.

Say we absolutely cannot land Archer without parting with one of Brinson or Santana, which I think is likely. Which one would you prefer to deal, or would you pass entirely? I would personally prefer to trade Brinson in an Archer trade. Santana is a young known quantity, and even if he doesn't improve he's got a solid floor as an above average slugging corner outfielder. Brinson probably has greater upside but with a higher risk. Plus, I'd be perfectly comfortable with a Phillips/Broxton platoon in CF or even just Phillips.

Given what the market for relievers has been so far, I can see Stearns shying away. That's not to say he won't sign anyone, but he's too smart to get heavily involved in an overpriced market. So with the way the off-season is unfolding, I think it's entirely possible that Hader stays in the pen for next year and we strongly pursue a trade for Archer. Then perhaps one move for the pen to retain Swarzek. That gives us our 2nd half pen from 2017 which was a very good one. We'd have a rotation of Archer/Anderson/Davies/Woodruff and eventually Nelson, hopefully. That would not be a bad way to go and would give us a very strong pitching staff late in the season especially if Nelson returns to form.

I don't understand why Schwarber is worth anything more than Broxton or Villar. He can't hit and doesn't have a position. Why do Cub fans think this guy is worth a haul? He’s 24 years old and popped 30 bombs in under 500 plate appearances a year ago. That alone is more intriguing than a Broxton or Villar. Especially if you think he can play first base. So he hits for power. That's good. That's also literally the only thing he does well. Broxton was a 20/20 guy in even less PAs and some want to DFA him for nothing. And Young, no one is writing Schwarber off, we're talking about his trade value, and his current production certainly factors into that. Being drafted 4th overall doesn't really move the needle any more than being drafted 5th moves it for Corey Ray right now.

I don't understand why Schwarber is worth anything more than Broxton or Villar. He can't hit and doesn't have a position. Why do Cub fans think this guy is worth a haul?

LOL, it's being reported now that the Cubs have their sights set on Archer. With what prospects, exactly?

Not surprised. I understand why people want to see him in the rotation, but I don't know why some people think it's a foregone conclusion.

I do find it kind of hilarious if the Mariners think that after all the money Ohtani gave up to go pro now, and all the endorsement money at stake, that the Mariners think a few hundred grand in bonus money will be the tipping point.

Oil Can Boyd was talking comeback a few years ago. Nothing came out of it, and I would not expect anything to come out of this either.

I had the same experience with Game of Thrones. Everyone I've ever known has raved about it. I pushed myself through the first season and I felt like I had wasted hours of my life at the end of it.

Too much. Chatwood would have been a nice addition, but too many durability concerns and injury risk for $13M a season.

Well they didn't non-tender Villar and it's probably the right call. Give him a shot to regain his 2016 form, if he doesn't you can mix in Sogard and then move on from both after 2018. 2-3M for Villar and you have plenty of money to address the pen. He was actually much better in the 2nd half last year. He just never had any chance to play after they acquired Walker.

Not necessarily. Guys turn down single year offers for lesser multi year deals for the security all the time.

Honestly, I agree with the last 2 posters but I also understand. If you're a head coach and you have a tie staring you in the face with a chip shot late and you go for it, and they stop you, and you lose 20-17, you'll be raked over the coals for it. He was kind of damned if he did and damned if he didn't. I would have however had them review the spot on 3rd, it was very close and there was almost no downside to looking at it. We've wasted timeouts for much less before.

Hundley is just so bad. I really want to like him because he seems like a good dude but every time he takes a step forward he takes 2 back. He looks like a poor man's Tim Tebow. It's too late and too risky now to make a change. Nothing to do except hope Hundley is good enough to win in Cleveland which isn't a sure thing, and then Rodgers should be back.

You're boggling your mind over 2 million in INCENTIVES when the Brewers are a 35 million dollar payroll operation? I'd hate to see your thoughts on a reliever signed for 10 mil a year guaranteed. Stearns low ball offers Hughes around a million then signs Jeffress for 1.75 and 2.2 in extra incentives. It's truly is an insult to Hughes when he was arguably one of the best relievers on the team. Look at the track record with him and Jeffress, Hughes is better. And he pitched in a lot more high leverage and difficult situations than Jeffress did last year. You are correct 5 million is pennies to a team and 10 million is around a buck. Jeffress will have a nice 4.5 era with a whip of 1.40 so I guess that's worth just over 2 million. Half of his incentives are for games finished which would likely mean he got put in a closer role which would mean things worked out quite well for him. The guy throws 96 still and has a dominant track record as a Brewer reliever. If he continues that way we have a dominant late inning arm under control for 3 cheap seasons. If he bombs out, we move on and we're out like 2 million bucks. What on earth is there to not like about that?

Everyone besides Hughes was tendered a contract. Stearns said there was no consideration given to non-tendering Jonathan Villar.

I stand corrected then. I remember having this conversation this time last year and could swear I recall it being confirmed that Scooter's contract waa guaranteed since it came before the actual arbitration process. But I'm sure if anyone would know it would be Vogt.

That's a brilliant deal. Not only is it cheap and carries no long-term harm if he doesn't pan out, but if best case scenario happens and he turns into a high end reliever again you get him for another 2 years for reasonable amounts. Jeffress was phenomenal for us from 2014-16 and decent last year. He just may be a guy who is always better here.

This is not a contract awarded in the arbitration process, it has been agreed to prior to that, therefore Vogt's contract is guaranteed. If they got cold feet about keeping him they could put him on waivers in March and see if he's claimed like they did with Scooter Gennett after they signed him under the exact same circumstances.

We can't count on Nelson for anything right now, unfortunately. I think we have to assume right now that 2018 will be a lost season for him, and he may not be the same even when he does return. If the best case scenario turns out there, great. But I think we need to prepare for the worst.

Now I'll go the other way and agree with Brew on this one. For one I think it's an exaggeration to say just about every bf.net person wants to trade Brinson. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't get that impression. Now on Brinson, yes, he's the best prospect we've had in some time. But that's exactly what makes him a valuable commodity. You have to give up something to get something, and so it makes sense to use a position of surplus like the OF to address a position of weakness. Sure, we'd all love to send Corey Ray out for Archer or Yelich, but again, have to give up something to get something. And yeah , I think you could move forward with a Phillips/Broxton platoon and be well above average in CF. Albeit in a small sample size, I really liked what I saw from Phillips and think he can be a 3 WAR type player in center. So if he is, my counterargument to the crowd that is totally against trading Brinson, is what you're going to do with Brinson/Phillips. Braun and Santana clearly aren't going anywhere soon, so you've only got 1 position open. Platooning Brinson against LHP obviously makes no sense at all and would be a waste. You could opt to trade Santana instead, who I would guess has pretty comparable trade value to Brinson, but given that we won 86 games last year, it's safer to stick with the proven commodity, especially when the proven commodity is also young and controlled, and has less of an injury concern. And the concerns about Brinson possibly being injury prone are legitimate arguments. As much as we get on Braun for injuries, Brinson is comparable in that way at a much younger age which is kind of scary. I'm not insisting that we trade Brinson, but I think we'd be foolish not to at least be open to it. And that has nothing to do with how people view him as a prospect, besides the mentioned injury concerns.

I’ve never seen someone so offended by something so insignificant. I put together a team that I’d like to see for the Brewers. Do I think it’s going to happen? Uh, no. But that’s not the point of the thread. So take your know it all, jerk-like comments elsewhere. Disagree with my post but boy, talk about over the top. Bill All Star, I do appreciate the work you put into justifying the moves. I think they could spend that money for a short period as well. Heck, maybe we would actually win something in the process. Laugh Monty. You’ll feel better. Alright, since it's been brought up, let's talk payroll and salaries. First, what do we know as facts? Well, not much, they don't have many guaranteed contracts for 2018 right now. But assuming most of their pre-arby and arbitration eligible guys are back, let's say we're looking at around $60M in committed payroll again. Now, what is their breakeven point? That's again a lot of guesswork. But based on recent revenue numbers, and assuming a slight increase in revenue with additional payroll spending, I'll throw out $125M as a point where Mark A. would neither gain nor lose money on the Brewers. So, what's an acceptable annual gain for him? Let's be blunt -- Mark A. bought the Brewers to make money. He is a businessman and the Brewers are an investment. Yes, he's willing to spend. No, he's not going to be willing to operate in the red, at least not long-term, nor should he be expected to be. I'll again just estimate $15M as an acceptable average return, which gives the Brewers a current payroll ceiling of about $110M. That seems in the ballpark to me. That would give us about $50M to invest, which sounds like a lot but goes quickly once you dole out a couple 8 figure a year contracts. There is always a ceiling and every dollar spent gets you closer to that ceiling. This is why I will never understand when people say things like, 'So what if we're paying this guy 20M a year? It isn't stopping us from spending.' It's why I can never understand advocating for a bad investment at 'only' $10M per year simply because 'we can afford it.' I can probably swing a couple hundred dollars a month on unicycle lessons if I really want to. That doesn't make it a good idea. If I managed my household budget the way some people want Mark to manage the payroll I'd be in trouble in a hurry.

Yeah, it's stunning to me that a multi-billion dollar industry like MLB that throws oodles of money at big league players can't pay their minor leaguers a decent wage. Here is the pay scale for minor league players prior to free agency or being on a 40 man roster: First pro contract: $1,100 per month Rookie league/ Short season: $1150 per month Low A: $1,300 per month High A: $1,500 per month Double-A: $1,700 per month Triple-A: $2,150 per month, $2,400 second year, $2,700 third year The salary increases $50 per month each year when repeating a level. Players also receive a meal allowance of $25 per day while traveling. And mind you, this is only during the season. The average MLB salary is $4.4M per season. This is absurd and the fact that the latest CBA did nothing to address it is a pretty good indication that MLB and MLBPA, even though it doesn't technically represent Milb players, doesn't really give a rip about you until you make it. Well, these guys are living at poverty levels. Some will toil in the minors for 10+ years and never make it and thus leave baseball with no money and no life skills. I'm not saying they need to be rich, but is it really so much to ask that they live above the poverty line? Something like annual salaries payed year round at minimums of 40K a year for the lowest levels and 80K for the highest is a drop in the bucket for MLB and seems pretty reasonable.