adambr2

This is the only part of your statement that I don't really agree with. What's the rationale behind a deliberately large second extension just because you made out so well on the first? It's a business, first and foremost, and I believe the team and players and agents all understand that. There's a risk assumed on both sides. Sometimes you end up with Jonathan Lucroy, sometimes you end up with Jeff Suppan. I've never really heard of giving out a purposely player favorable 2nd deal just because you ended up on the bargain end of the first. Maybe the Yankees with Jeter toward the end of his career. But we don't have unlimited funds to be throwing around goodwill money. I think we signed Braun to a 105M dollar extension because we thought it was a good idea at the time, not because we felt like we owed Braun from us coming out ahead on his first deal.

I've always thought such deals for almost completely unproven players are really good deals for both the player and team. Take your Broxton example for instance. 6/$15M. Now if I'm Keon Broxton, how am I looking at this? 6 months ago I was laying in bed thinking about how to fix my swing, wondering if the next time I was sent down would be my last time ever in MLB. Now you just offered me enough money where I can live comfortably the rest of my life no matter what happens tomorrow. Sure, I risk losing out on millions, but no matter what, I'm set. Whereas if I bet on myself, maybe I'm never the same after the wrist injury, or my second half was a fluke, and in 6 more months I'm right back where I was. So if I'm Broxton, I'm taking the financial security now, but that's just me. As for the team, also a great deal. If he proves the 2nd half was no fluke, you've got a hell of a bargain player on your hands for most of the rest of his career. If he tanks, you're out 2.5M a year for 6 years, pocket change in MLB terms. The only caution I'd make about these kinds of investments is that you really need to be able to gauge the work ethic and character of the guy you're betting on. If he's the kind of guy you need to keep dangling the carrot out there every year for him to keep him motivated and improving, go year to year.

Since it's a real quiet baseball news time right now, I thought it'd be a good time for a new discussion. So, who on this roster right now looks like a target you'd want the organization to lock up to an extended contract? Seems to me there aren't too many who fall into this category right now. Most players on the roster are either too unproven and already too inexpensive to worry about an extension, or too old to want to invest in. Villar - One more 0-3 year in 2017 and then aribitration. If you believe in Villar as a long term building block, it wouldn't be the worst idea to buy out his arbitration plus a FA year or two. If you look at him more as future trade bait, it might be better to go year to year as a potential trade partner might prefer that flexibility. Nelson/Peralta - You would have to really believe in one of these guys to go for this. You're buying low, which is good, but both are another bad year away from being non tender candidates. Still, given the price of starting pitching, if you believe in a bounce back and can lock in a few cheap years now, it's not the worst idea. Any other suggestions? Arcia, if you really believe in his future and want to bet heavy that he's going to be a star and buy low. Santana? Perez? We definitely have the money to do these deals now, but there's a lot of risk/reward that goes into these. Or, maybe Stearns would prefer to go year to year with as many players as he can.

Interesting choice. Given that A.J. Reed was the pick after Gatewood, would you rather have Bellinger and Gatewood or Taylor Williams and Reed? I'd probably still rather have Bellinger + Gatewood, right now. This is probably unfair over such a small sample but it scares me a bit how bad Reed has been at the MLB level. But there's a lot of good 'what if' deals that I'd like just as much that fall into this category. You certainly can't go wrong with Turner over Medeiros.

But other teams don't care about that. They'll need very good production still to want to make that investment. Where did he mention any other team? I believe he is speaking in terms of the Brewers paying him. I have no complaints about Braun's salary on the surface, at the time it appeared to be a good extension for both sides, if still unusual that early out. But since this is a thread about his trade value to the Dodgers, I certainly think mentioning that another team doesn't care about his value to the Brewers earlier in his career.

But other teams don't care about that. They'll need very good production still to want to make that investment.

It's a shame, there was Colin Walsh levels of greatness possible here.

When does Baseball America release their top 100?

Don't know why they don't just bring Hammel back on a short term deal then. That makes a lot more sense for them than trading for Nelson.

Farris wasn't even listed among the Cubs Top 30 prospects before the trade and isn't among the Rockies top 30 now. I doubt the Cubs are really sweating his loss.

I tend to wonder how many of today's stars or top prospects would still be so if we had picked them. Certainly we haven't drafted well enough, I'm just curious as to whether there is a major coaching flaw in the farm system that has helped contribute to the problem. It isn't normal to take this many pitchers as we have over the years, especially picking high most years, and literally have two that turn out to be more than #4s in 25 years.

Yeah, Braun's legacy means very little to me. His contract isn't awful as long as he can be reasonably productive the next few years, but the logjam in the OF has the potential to be a bit of a pain with Braun being literally the only one we can't trade. It would be a really good next 4 years to be in the AL. Braun would be the regular DH and he would probably hold up better health wise not playing in the field every day.

Attanasio lost me a long time ago. He's doing all he can to temper enthusiasm for the current roster? I get that he doesn't want false expectations and hopes fans will still show up even for a 90+ loss team but it's silly. People know where this team is. Nobody's going to be disappointed if they don't contend this year, but the manager and players don't need to hear that kind of stuff from their owner. Low expectations are almost a sure fire way to insure low results. All you have to do is see the mess in inner city schools across the country. Why doesn't baseball just instruct the Cubs to organize another celebration and not bother with playing the season if half the teams in the game aren't playing to win? If I was owner, I'd say something like "We are now well into our rebuild process, and while we're not to the point where it's realistic to expect us to contend, we are hoping for more players already here to emerge as viable major league talents that can blend with the prospects nearing the major leagues to form a competitive team in the fairly near future that will grow into a strong contender for an extended period. It remains to be seen if we'll see progress in the W/L record in 2017, but it's certainly not a horrible roster right now with potential for some immediate improvement and in baseball you just never know." If it's any consolation to you, we have a manager in Counsell who definitely wants to win every single day. Look, I've mentioned before that progress in a rebuild isn't always visible in progressively higher win totals every year. They won 73 games last year, and this year they might win 70. But if they do win less, it doesn't mean that the rebuild isn't working or that they aren't getting closer to their end goal. That's all that Mark A is saying, and he's right. We aren't really well into the rebuild process. We haven't even started the 2nd full year. If we win 70 games this year, but Arcia emerges as an AS candidate already, Brinson comes up in July and rakes at the MLB level the rest of the year, and Hader and Woodruff get a few starts each in September and perform well, and Diaz hits .300 with 30 HR and finishes the season in Biloxi, I'd say we're definitely progressing.

This wasn't something that was heavily advertised most years, if at all, but for years in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars years and after, active military members were offered 2 free Terrace tickets on Sundays if there were availability. For all I know this may not have been offered anymore the last few years but I'm curious as to whether it's still an under the radar thing that they offer.

Doesn't really have the arm to play 3rd or RF. Probably can stick him at SS or LF and get away with it, but it won't be pretty. I don't know how this is more than a posturing technique. Arcia and Villar are locked in up the middle. He's not going to play over Shaw and he's not even a better lefty OF option than Nieuwenhuis. Even in the event of an injury Perez is a much more realistic fill in.

I think Mark A is a more seasoned, mature owner than he was 5-10 years ago. I think now he would say, 'You have Dave's number, Scott.'

I do expect a big, 9 figure free agent on the team in 2020. Not basing it on anything but a hunch, wanting to get that one last guy to push them over the top, and no idea who it will be.

Well he hasn't been waived yet. Presumably the Rockies will try to salvage something for him in trade before they place him on waivers. I dont understand the process. DFA so when does it become waivers for teams to claim? Isnt it essentially waived now pending a trade in 3days? When a player is designated for assignment it immediately frees up a 40 man roster spot and starts a 10 day clock for the team to take action on the player. Typically yes they do end up placed on waivers but often teams will try to trade the player first to at least salvage something for their loss.

MLB is going to a 10 day DL this year, so I'm very curious to see if teams will try to manipulate this into an extra floating roster spot. It would be pretty easy any time you have an off day to just skip one guy's start, DL him and have him back up by his next start anyway. So while I think the original idea here is probably still a ways away from existing in practice, I could easily see a 4-5 man floating rotation with an extra man in the pen and shorter (90-100 pitch) starts. Maybe this is just selective memory on my part but to me we seemed to get burned pretty frequently last year in the 6th and 7th when a guy would get through 5 or 6 but be showing signs of wear and we'd try to squeeze one more inning out of him.

Not to get too far off track but to me Mark A. has come a long ways as an owner. When he first got here I think he wanted a good deal of control over the day to day operations of the team, he wanted to win and win quickly, understandably so, he wanted to put the Brewers on the map and get out and woo some known names (Suppan, Gagne) into town. Now that he's been here for over a decade he seems to have a lot better feel for running a franchise. He sees the big picture a lot better and is a lot more hands off on personnel acquisition. I'm glad he recognized that Carolina is a great option for a long term High A home and wants to ensure that it remains a long term home.

Well he hasn't been waived yet. Presumably the Rockies will try to salvage something for him in trade before they place him on waivers.

Mark A. is in negotiations to purchase the Mudcats. http://www.brewcrewball.com/2017/1/29/14431450/milwaukee-brewers-on-deck-mark-attanasio-buying-carolina-mudcats

Interesting, I never knew he was all or nothing on the Marlins. I wonder if he would have been amenable with a big enough over slot bonus, or if he was dead set. Tyler Glasnow was taken in the 5th round in 2011, but we didn't have a pick 10 picks prior so that doesn't fit with the above rules. Of the ones that did, there are some good options. Turner over Medeiros. Maybe Gallo over Haniger? And Brinson over dither of Roache or Coulter assuming we still got a comparable return for Lucroy. Or DeLeon. But my pick would probably be Cody Bellinger over Taylor Williams in the 4th round of the 2013 draft. I wish it wasn't Taylor Williams because I really like the guy, but adding Bellinger is a no-brainer.

If Butler didn't have some serious concerns right now, he wouldn't be available. I think more importantly than whether or not he will ever rediscover his talent and be successful at the big league level, is what it costs us if he doesn't. The answer is essentially nothing, so I see nothing wrong with that kind of a flyer right now.

I really like Benintendi, but personally, if he had come up in our system instead of Boston's, I bet he's not even ranked Top 5 in the T100.