Brewers to talk extension with Segura

[Invader3K]

How would it be collusion if it's just a franchise policy? Doesn't collusion have to involve two or more parties in a mutual "agreement"?

 

The CBA allows for 6 years of club control, I don't know how the union could force a franchise to offer long-term contracts to some of its players. I'm not that well-versed in the CBA language though so I could very well be wrong.

 

The way Souptown worded it, I took it as implying it would be a policy for every team in the league. My bad if that wasn't the case.

[SoupTown]

Ha Ha. When I said 'a team would never offer contracts aside from the six years of control year by year', I did mean the BREWERS as a (the) team.

 

Imagine how simple it would be. For the overall Brewer 'good' or 'bad', I am not sure. But it sure stinks when you are paying your players north of 100 mill and you are having losing seasons. Losing seasons should be 'rewarded' with low payroll.

 

The focus would sure shift to draft and development

[adambr2]

It looks like Segura compares very well with none other than Alcides Escobar.

 

Both are light hitting SS's with little power that carry a low OBP, but have speed as a weapon if they get on base.

 

Both are rangy defensive SS's with a strong arm that help make up for their offensive deficiencies. Segura probably would have been wise to take the "safe" long-term deal buying out arbitration as Escobar did to set him up for life.

 

At the end of the day, we're not missing Escobar. Segura is younger and obviously now cost-controlled for longer. We're missing Odorizzi more than Escobar.

[adambr2]

Has it gotten to the point where we may be looking for a new SS next year?

 

I don't think we're quite there yet....I think Segura gets a pretty long leash in that I think they will give him all of 2015 yet to see what they have yet.

 

But I could see Segura possibly be a non-tender candidate when he hits arbitration in 2016 if he puts up another sub .600 OPS season next year. That's an awfully hard fall for a guy who was a candidate for a very long-term extension a year ago.

[chadomac]

Yeah, for making the league minimum you take the great shortstop defense. If he continues to be a sub .700 OPS player (I realize he doesn't even have a .600 OPS as of right now - yuck), I would think the Brewers will keep him around until he hits arbitration and then let him walk. I am so glad we didn't sign him to a long deal.

[monty57]

But I could see Segura possibly be a non-tender candidate when he hits arbitration in 2016 if he puts up another sub .600 OPS season next year.

 

I agree. His arbitration probably times out to around the time Arcia should be ready to step in. Arcia will probably be a better defender than Segura, so Segura needs to hit to keep his job. I think Segura will be the Brewers' starter in 2015 to see if he can turn things around, and hopefully he does. If not, Arcia is waiting in the wings. We have a big hole at 1B and possibly one at 3B, so finding a stop-gap SS probably isn't high on Melvin's list this offseason.

 

I had a theory one time that a team should NEVER offer contracts EVER to any players. You just have each player for six years and you let them go. This is because arbitration pays each player based on what he did LAST YEAR. So you never overpay. If a player plays wonderfully - he gets paid. If he does not play well - he is paid not well.

 

I think the opposite is a good strategy for smaller market teams. These team-friendly extensions to good pre-arby players allow for them to get talent (like Braun and Lucroy) at a reasonable price for seven or eight years instead of six. Worst case, the player doesn't live up to his ability, but the price tag isn't too high so even if you have to cut the player, you can absorb the cost. Even with hindsight, I wouldn't be upset right now if we had signed Segura to Lucroy's contract. At that price, even if he doesn't start hitting he's still a good utility guy when Arcia (or someone else) takes his starting spot.

 

When weighing the positives of getting good players at a very cheap price for an extra couple of seasons vs the negatives of some players not working out, I think it's a great tool for smaller markets to build a winning franchise. I think Melvin has been good about making sure the offer is team-friendly, and not "backing up the truck" and signing a potentially franchise-crippling contract. It is better to play out the six years than it is to sign a that type of contract.