Long-term extension candidates?

[adambr2]

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.

[reillymcshane]

I don't think there's anyone you lock up at this time. Too many question marks.

 

I could see Villar if you believed his 2016 was his true self. But there are signs that some regression is in order. Plus, you want to see him improve his defense.

 

Broxton, Santana, Arcia, Shaw, Perez, Susac, Bandy, Knebel, Anderson - they either need to show they are long term pieces - or they just aren't that good. None of these guys combine talent and production that warrant a long term investment.

 

Guerra is too old to sign to a long term deal - even if he keeps pitching well. We control him through his mid-30s already. No issue there.

 

Peralta, Nelson - way to volatile. Peralta could be a DFA if he tanks this year.

 

The one guy on the team that I see as being a solid, everyday player is Davies. I don't see a great player - but a solid guy. That said, he's not a great player - and I don't think he ever will be. No point in locking in a good - but not great - player for extra years.

[3and2Fastball]

The way the nature of Baseball is going, I don't see the Brewers locking up anyone longterm, and I think that is wise.. If Arcia hit like 2011 Braun I wouldn't lock him up much beyond his age 30 or 31 season. Seriously

[jerichoholicninja]

Villar is the only one right now I would even consider. Davies is a distant second. Nelson and Peralta have been too inconsistent and not even that good when they haven't been bad, plus they're on the "older" side when considering extending a pitcher. Pretty much no one else has enough of a track record to even know what they are at this point. Maybe if Broxton starts 2017 like he finished 2016 I think you try and get him on the cheap but he's so far from even arbitration I don't know if even that makes sense.

[pacopete4]

Probably should extend Braun well into his 40's.

[brewcrewdue80]

Josh Hader now, and Luis Ortiz next offseason. Because pitching quality isn't cheap.

 

There isn't a single soul on the Brewers you extend. No one came up with a Braun type Minor League history who's 1year performance confirms the stats of said Minors. Arcia is the closest because you're expecting his defense to be worth 4 or 5 games on its own. The problem there is that you've got Villar, Diaz, Dubon, even Lara and Gatewood who present higher Offensive potential either ready to go in Villar or in the very near future. Gotta pick your poison defense ability or offensive ability? With Milw not exactly teeming with great offensive prospects or TOR pitching you may find going with the better offensive talents over above average defense. Andrelton Simmons brought back top 100 then top 30 prospect and now #80 SP Sean Newcombe. You just know at some point 1 of these super talented Middle Infielders will be traded for a need in due time. What'd be bad is giving an Elvis Andrus type contract where the money gets out of hand. He did sign the contract what would have been during his 2nd arbitration year which was already bought out. But that's just it, 5years experience. Not a single young player on this Brewers team has even 3years service time. The players that do, Gennett, Peralta, and Kirk N are replaceable talents if they even make the ML 25man out of Spring Training. So you're not even considering any extension.

 

So my answer is Josh Hader. 9years and you immediately start him Opening Day Starter since you've locked him up as your Franchise pitcher for the next 9years.

[jerichoholicninja]

So my answer is Josh Hader. 9years and you immediately start him Opening Day Starter since you've locked him up as your Franchise pitcher for the next 9years.

 

I have clue if you're serious or not.

[brewcrewdue80]

So my answer is Josh Hader. 9years and you immediately start him Opening Day Starter since you've locked him up as your Franchise pitcher for the next 9years.

 

I have clue if you're serious or not.

 

I am and I'm not lol. At this point he's the closest I think deserving of an extension. The fact he has 0 ML games played indicates there isn't a single candidate for long-term extension.

[AKCheesehead]

I can't see any candidates at this time. Next offseason, there are a number of players who depending on their 2017 season, could make a lot of sense. Right now, I wouldn't look to extend anybody.

[MrTPlush]

There are a lot of candidates. Hader is an option as is Villar as is Broxton. If one of those guys wanted to sign away 6+ years for $15mil you wouldn't think about it? Of course it helps if they have a decent year as an MLB player, but I would pay his projected Arby's salary if he gives me a year or two of FA years in exchange. It's a win win for both sides in a way. Just more risk for the player.

[adambr2]

There are a lot of candidates. Hader is an option as is Villar as is Broxton. If one of those guys wanted to sign away 6+ years for $15mil you wouldn't think about it? Of course it helps if they have a decent year as an MLB player, but I would pay his projected Arby's salary if he gives me a year or two of FA years in exchange. It's a win win for both sides in a way. Just more risk for the player.

 

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.

[MNBrew]

I mostly agree w/ MrTPlush initial assertion: There are a lot of potential candidates. But my feeling is that it's too early to know right now for sure who those guys are.

 

To say it's more risk for the player doesn't do justice to the entirety of the scenario. There's initial & real risk, all the angles of hypothetical risk, and eventually the perspective that only hindsight can provide. To wit:

 

- If a guy like Hader signs a contract like that and then blows out his arm forever 2 games into his MLB career (think: Chris Saenz), then Hader has 100% security and the Brewers, 100% liability (and $15M less salary to spend over those years). . . . A better hypothetical might be this in terms of the ballclub's risk: What if Evan Longoria had had a Pat Listach-like injury -- i.e., career-altering in terms of meaningful, long-term productivity -- a year or so into his mega-contract?

 

- Alternately, if Hader turns into the second coming of Tom Glavine or Steve Carlton, then it's an entirely different story. That said, in that scenario, the Brewers probably jump toward a Braun-like second long-term extension with much larger dollars to offset the team-favoring (arguably player's earnings-screwing) short-term, Lucroy-esque deal and retain Hader - OR - the team still stinks and determines they can't afford him in the real-long-term, then decide to trade him for a franchise-changing haul of A+ prospects.

[Ennder]

If you really believe in Villar you try to get him signed now because if he repeats what he did last year he prices out of the organization most likely. Though if he repeats what he did last year you probably just trade him at the deadline this year and get a haul.

 

Hader is just too young to do it just yet. If you want to sign him long term you make sure he has success and health for a big chunk of this year first.

[adambr2]

- Alternately, if Hader turns into the second coming of Tom Glavine or Steve Carlton, then it's an entirely different story. That said, in that scenario, the Brewers probably jump toward a Braun-like second long-term extension with much larger dollars to offset the team-favoring (arguably player's earnings-screwing) short-term, Lucroy-esque deal.

 

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.

[dacbrewers]

Well they gave 15 million for 3 years to an unproven player to play 1b...so anything is possible.

[brewcrewdue80]

There are a lot of candidates. Hader is an option as is Villar as is Broxton. If one of those guys wanted to sign away 6+ years for $15mil you wouldn't think about it? Of course it helps if they have a decent year as an MLB player, but I would pay his projected Arby's salary if he gives me a year or two of FA years in exchange. It's a win win for both sides in a way. Just more risk for the player.

 

It's just too early to consider Villar or Broxton. Like it was too early for Jean Segura. The Brewers have a number of backups for CF and SS/2b forthcoming. And I highly doubt 15mil in 6 years is even remotely close to appealing to these 2. Wilmer Flores just won his 1st year's Arbitration case and will be paid 2.2million next season. You'd expect a continual rise with just a 0.2 WAR per season at this point, to go 4-5million and then at least 6-9million. For less than 1WAR a season. I'm sure that 3rd arb year is a non-tender unless he's better than a 2WAR player these next seasons. But these 2 were a 6WAR combined value. And for Broxton his 2.1WAR was earned in 75games with just 244PAs. A regression to 0WAR makes them worth 15mil to FA alone, not to the extension years. These two continue with 4WAR years, you could say the comparison would be Jose Reyes. That comes with 10mil or more past the team control years which will be 10years past that point. a QO in 5 years must be over 18million. Look at Pitts.' deals with Polanco and Marte. 5 and 6 years in the 30s with option 2 option years of about 12mil avg then. That's more in line with what it'd take. 6/30mil. Even Josh Harrison got 4/27.3mil after 1 solid season and again a later signing but still. The value seems beyond a 15million signing. Jean Segura back to him just received 6.2mil in what I would believe is his 1st year for arb. 2 good years out of 4. with another 2 arbs to get paid.

 

Yeah 15million sets you for life if you live within your means. 30million helps insure you are set for life. The offer has to have at minimum a 9million season. I find it hard to see 5 years for 6mil then on all the other years.

[reillymcshane]

I think the biggest cautionary tale with really early extensions is Jon Singleton.

 

The Astros gave him $10M over five years before he even reached the majors. He proceeded to hit .168 and struck out 134 times on 310 ABs.

 

The contract had three option years that could have upped the value to $30M.

 

Singleton was a good - not great prospect. This isn't a guy with the talent of Longoria or Braun. I think that is the biggest thing with these early extensions - you don't bet on guys who aren't sure things (or as close to sure things as you can get).

 

I think the general rule of thumb is to try and lock up elite talent as early as possible - buying an extra year or two of service time. Guys who fall in this category are Lindor or Seager types.

 

With regard to other players, you're probably smart to let them prove themselves for an extended period - 2-3 years - then approach them about a longer deal if you want. I'm wary of players who come to the big leagues and do far better than expected. You don't want to dish out an extension based on three months of good play or something like that (unless they are elite talent and you expected that kind of performance).

 

If Jimmy Nelson had pitched well in 2016, he'd probably be an ideal guy to sign to an extension. Or if Peralta had done well in 2015 - same thing. Neither was a super high prospect or an elite talent - and it was wise to wait and see how they developed before signing them to a long term deal.

[MrTPlush]

I'd disagree it is too early to consider extensions for any player. I will take the risk on a player, but wouldn't start handing out early extensions to lots of players. Yiu have to believe in the players etc, but gambling a few million a year where you could gain $30mil or even more? If the player continues his current projection(or better)?

 

Once again I probably wouldn't hand them out like candy where I'd have $10mil yearly in riskier extensions, but taking a chance on one or two isn't crazy.

[adambr2]

I think the biggest cautionary tale with really early extensions is Jon Singleton.

 

The Astros gave him $10M over five years before he even reached the majors. He proceeded to hit .168 and struck out 134 times on 310 ABs.

 

The contract had three option years that could have upped the value to $30M.

 

Singleton was a good - not great prospect. This isn't a guy with the talent of Longoria or Braun. I think that is the biggest thing with these early extensions - you don't bet on guys who aren't sure things (or as close to sure things as you can get).

 

I think the general rule of thumb is to try and lock up elite talent as early as possible - buying an extra year or two of service time. Guys who fall in this category are Lindor or Seager types.

 

With regard to other players, you're probably smart to let them prove themselves for an extended period - 2-3 years - then approach them about a longer deal if you want. I'm wary of players who come to the big leagues and do far better than expected. You don't want to dish out an extension based on three months of good play or something like that (unless they are elite talent and you expected that kind of performance).

 

If Jimmy Nelson had pitched well in 2016, he'd probably be an ideal guy to sign to an extension. Or if Peralta had done well in 2015 - same thing. Neither was a super high prospect or an elite talent - and it was wise to wait and see how they developed before signing them to a long term deal.

 

But is it really a cautionary tale when your net loss is $10M? Over 5 years? You could lose $10M in one year on a reliever who happens to have a bad year. Yeah, it didn't work out with Singleton, but I get what Houston was doing. And at the end of the day, you never hear much about it, because it didn't even put a dent in their budget. If it had worked out and Singleton was even a solid everyday regular, with an extra 3/30 team option attached, all we'd be hearing is about how much of a genius move it is to get 8 cheap years of a stud.

 

Yes, regarding a guy like Broxton, you couldn't be blamed for wanting to wait and not bite based on 3 months. Just know that if you do, and he puts up 4 WAR next year, you can forget about a cheap buyout of any arbitration or free agency years.

[jerichoholicninja]

I think the biggest cautionary tale with really early extensions is Jon Singleton.

 

The Astros gave him $10M over five years before he even reached the majors. He proceeded to hit .168 and struck out 134 times on 310 ABs.

 

The contract had three option years that could have upped the value to $30M.

 

Singleton was a good - not great prospect. This isn't a guy with the talent of Longoria or Braun. I think that is the biggest thing with these early extensions - you don't bet on guys who aren't sure things (or as close to sure things as you can get).

 

I think the general rule of thumb is to try and lock up elite talent as early as possible - buying an extra year or two of service time. Guys who fall in this category are Lindor or Seager types.

 

With regard to other players, you're probably smart to let them prove themselves for an extended period - 2-3 years - then approach them about a longer deal if you want. I'm wary of players who come to the big leagues and do far better than expected. You don't want to dish out an extension based on three months of good play or something like that (unless they are elite talent and you expected that kind of performance).

 

If Jimmy Nelson had pitched well in 2016, he'd probably be an ideal guy to sign to an extension. Or if Peralta had done well in 2015 - same thing. Neither was a super high prospect or an elite talent - and it was wise to wait and see how they developed before signing them to a long term deal.

 

I'd be on board for throwing $2M a year at a guy who could be very good but hasn't proven anything yet. That's barely a drop in the bucket for anyone, even Milwaukee. It's not an issue as long as you don't do it to too many guys.

[mrn1ceguy]

My concern with everyone projected to be on the 25 man roster, even if they all perform greatly, there is no guarantee they will be our first choice to be the starting player at their position in 3-6 years. As good as broxton could be, Brinson could be better. As good as Villar could be at 2nd, Diaz could be better. As good Arcia could be, Dubon or Lara could be better. As good as Davis could be, he may not be one of the 5 best starting pitchers in the rotation. There is too much uncertainty on roster management down the road to predict who will be here during these players FA years, let alone last couple arbitration years. The only value in these would be to get these players cheaper than what they could be so as to increase their trade value rather then to lock them into the roster for the next 3-6 years.

 

Any extensions should be to a 10 year cornerstone player, not just the best player on the team. For example, a future Braun or Sheets (injury not withstanding) are good ideas but a future Weeks or Hart is not a good idea (replaceable player if you have a good farm system). If Arcia or Brinson or Hader or Erceg prove their worth in the next year or two, then they could be extended if no one in the minors looks to be an improvement a few years down the road. Otherwise, play them for 3-5 years and then replace with the next prospect in the pipeline.

[brewcrewdue80]

On Singleton, I think he had such a great minor league, like Polanco or Kris Bryant but wasnt called up in September. The whispers of disgust led to both sides working out a contract that allowed him to start opening day the next year. The contract was 7years guaranteeing that team control w/o having to keep him down and play the game then on Super 2.

Now ill go check and see if I remembered correctly.

[adambr2]

My concern with everyone projected to be on the 25 man roster, even if they all perform greatly, there is no guarantee they will be our first choice to be the starting player at their position in 3-6 years. As good as broxton could be, Brinson could be better. As good as Villar could be at 2nd, Diaz could be better. As good Arcia could be, Dubon or Lara could be better. As good as Davis could be, he may not be one of the 5 best starting pitchers in the rotation. There is too much uncertainty on roster management down the road to predict who will be here during these players FA years, let alone last couple arbitration years. The only value in these would be to get these players cheaper than what they could be so as to increase their trade value rather then to lock them into the roster for the next 3-6 years.

 

I don't see the issue. As you hinted at in your last sentence, young good players are only worth more when under cheap controllable contracts.

 

If a guy performs greatly but isn't your first choice at a position, find a new position for him or trade him for a haul. Can't ever have too much of a good thing.

[mrn1ceguy]

 

I don't see the issue. As you hinted at in your last sentence, young good players are only worth more when under cheap controllable contracts.

 

If a guy performs greatly but isn't your first choice at a position, find a new position for him or trade him for a haul. Can't ever have too much of a good thing.

 

That's assuming they play up to their potential. If they don't, they now have a guaranteed contract that's harder to send down, cut or trade. If the only benefit is a couple cheap years at the risk of having wasted money (and I'm not thinking the 5 year 15 million contract we would give someone like Susac but more the 5 year 40 million contract Segura was rumored to have been offered), that's a big risk at year 1.

 

Using segura for example, if we gave him the 5 year 40 million contract, we wouldn't have been able to trade him the way we did. However if segura was awesome for two more years, we could have got him on something like 5 year 60 million buying out two years of FA. I'm much more open to doing extensions after two good years once the risk of "flash in the pan" has been lowered (unless you have Braun's minor league/1st year pedigree).

[Ennder]

Well they gave 15 million for 3 years to an unproven player to play 1b...so anything is possible.

Given the payroll consideration of the team these next 3 years this is a complete non factor. The Brewers will not be hurt financially in any way by that deal. It is a pure upside move with the downside being losing some money that won't hurt the rebuild.