Recently, particularly with the Braves, we've seen a trend of long-term extensions for extremely young players. It makes sense for an organization like the Brewers, who certainly would want to keep their own homegrown talent but lack the capital to keep superstars if they are allowed to hit free agency. While extending guys into their mid to late 30's isn't something I'm particularly fond of, locking up 22 year old players for the prime of their career is different. I'd also add that with a new CBA coming up in the coming years, there may be more of an urgency to lock up core players now, not knowing how control of these players will look later. If someone like Ronald Acuna and Ozzie Albies are willing to do so, would a player like Keston Hiura also be interested? If he is, he probably is looking at the 8 year, 100M extension for Acuna as the baseline for an extension for himself. Of course, Acuna is a well more complete prospect than Hiura, and I think the Brewers would be looking for something closer to the Ozzie Albies deal. That's a fairly significant gap, but perhaps there's a middle ground here. Something for Hiura might be structured along these lines: 2020: 1M 2021: 2M 2022: 3M 2023: 8M 2024: 10M 2025: 12M 2026: 17M 2026: 20M team option with 5M buyout 2027: 20M team option with 5M buyout The bare minimum guarantee to Hiura in this deal would be $63M over 6 years, with a maximum value of $93M over 8 years. Why it might work for the Brewers: If they believe Hiura is a core player and his performance so far is indicative of what he can bring, it's a great value. They never go over 17M without an option, and the buyouts are reasonable if things go south. In no way is this a crippling deal. Why it might work for Hiura: Simply put, 63 million dollars, bird in the hand. If Hiura has any concerns about his long-term defensive ability or his elbow, why not cash in now? He gets paid more than a traditional 0-3 player in his first 3 years, and can earn nearly the full 100M in this contract if he is anything close to what they expect. Trent Grisham is an entirely different situation, and with him, maybe it's just too soon. If you're signing Grisham long-term, you're looking for a substantial discount -- after all, he's been in the big leagues all of two weeks, he wasn't considered a top prospect coming into this season, and there's really no rush. Still, if you look at him as a building block and can lock in significant savings now, it's not a bad idea. Grisham would resemble much closer to a Lucroy type extension than a Acuna one. Off the top of my head, I'd guess a reasonable offer right now would look something like: 2020: 1M 2021: 1M 2022: 1M 2023: 4M 2024: 6M 2025: 8M 2026: 10M team option with 2M buyout 2027: 11M team option with 2M buyout In Grisham's case, it's either a 6 year/$25M deal, a 7 year/$33M deal, or a 8 year/$42M deal. So if this is such a lowball, why would Grisham do it? Well, this is a guy who entered this year in AA Biloxi and many felt his MLB dreams were starting to fade. Now that you're here, if you have a chance to cash in on it and take care of yourself and your family for life, is that opportunity too good to pass up? $25M, guaranteed, with a signature, to a kid who had never played above Class AA before this season. In any event, these are just my thoughts, I'm sure some will believe that I'm off on estimates, or that it's far too early for either to even consider. But I think it's an idea at least worth kicking around for the organization -- investing in your young talent is something that not only often proves to be a worthy investment, but generates fan excitement to commit to keeping players here for the primes of their careers.