Extension candidates -- who is next?

[adambr2]

I thought it was interested after Anderson's extension that Stearns said he is in discussions with other current Brewers about extensions. MLBtraderumors speculated Knebel, Santana and Shaw as probably the 3 likeliest.

 

Knebel seems more like a year to year guy for me as a reliever, but if they really believe in him, with the price of relievers, they might look for a discount now. He'll already get a nice raise as a Super 2 this year.

 

Both Santana and Shaw also have 4 years left of control, though neither is arby eligible yet. I guess Santana being younger is probably a more logical extension candidate than Shaw, but who knows.

 

Davies? Also 4 years control left. So none of these guys are particularly urgent and all would need to sacrifice a year or two of free agency to make this worthwhile. There seems to be a familiar theme here though -- a lot of our core hitting free agency in 2022, so I can understand why they want to look to extend one or more now.

[MrTPlush]

Domingo Santana is definitely one...no doubt. No team wouldn’t try to lock up someone like him to an extension. Outside of that it is hard to really guess. Knebel is obviously a big risk, but that also means a big discount too if an extension is worked out. Better get some really attractive options on that deal.

[monty57]

Knebel is entering year 1 (of 4) arby. He will be 26 in November, so a two-year extension would be for his year 30 and 31 seasons. Sounds like a good idea.

 

Jimmy Nelson is entering his year 1 (of 3) arby years. He will be injured much of next year, no one knows how he will pitch when he comes back, and will be in his year 32 season in his first FA year. Unless I could get him extremely cheap due to the injury, I'd pass.

 

Zach Davies turns 25 in February and is in his final pre-arby year, with three arby years. He will be 29 in his first year of free agency, so I'd be fine with offering him an extension, although I think he has Boras as his agent (Cots doesn't say) and if that's the case an extension would seem unlikely.

 

Shaw is also in his final pre-arby year with three arby years, but he will be 28 in April. That means he will be 32 in his first year of free agency, so I'd be hesitant on offering an extension.

 

Next year is Santana's first pre-arby year, and is his age 25 season. He'll therefore be 29 in his first year of free agency, so an extension makes sense. The big question here is what the Brewers' plans are for OF in the future, although a good contract should make Santana very tradeable if the Brewers eventually replace him with a prospect.

 

Orlando Arcia is entering his second pre-arby year, which will be his age 23 season. I would consider a long-term deal like Braun's first deal with Arcia, who will be only 28 in his first free agent year.

 

All of these would of course be contingent on the player signing a deal that includes buying out a year or two of free agent seasons, while giving a discount to the team in return for the risk the team is assuming by signing a long-term guaranteed contract.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'd be more interested in extending Shaw than Santana for several reasons. He's not a defensive liability and in virtually the same amount of PA, Santana fanned 40 more times than Shaw. Going forward I think that makes Shaw the slightly safer bet and because he's a few years older, he'll be cheaper. Besides that their minor league system is more stocked with OF. Erceg could be ready to replace Shaw by 2020 though he's no sure thing, but they'll find plenty of suitors for a LH power hitting 3B on a relatively modest deal with control for 2-3 years beyond that.

 

I can certainly see trying to do both at this point if the price is right.

[coolhandluke121]

I'd be more interested in extending Shaw than Santana for several reasons. He's not a defensive liability and in virtually the same amount of PA, Santana fanned 40 more times than Shaw. Going forward I think that makes Shaw the slightly safer bet and because he's a few years older, he'll be cheaper. Besides that their minor league system is more stocked with OF. Erceg could be ready to replace Shaw by 2020 though he's no sure thing, but they'll find plenty of suitors for a LH power hitting 3B on a relatively modest deal with control for 2-3 years beyond that.

 

I can certainly see trying to do both at this point if the price is right.

 

Yep. Also, Shaw can move to 1b and be a borderline elite defender there if you need to make room for Erceg.

 

I like the idea of extensions as long as the Brewers get a reasonable potential discount in exchange for the risk. I like this team a lot and hope they can stay together. I know that's a dangerous way to think about it and I hope the Brewers aren't thinking that way, but as a fan I freely admit that's a factor and it's yet another reason to want Shaw over Santana if they're both at fair market value.

[coolhandluke121]

Knebel seems more like a year to year guy for me as a reliever, but if they really believe in him, with the price of relievers, they might look for a discount now.

 

 

I think the bubble is going to burst on reliever salaries soon. It's not that bullpens aren't valuable overall; it's that each individual isn't necessarily worth that much given the risk of injury and the year-to-year fluctuations in reliever performance. We've already seen the bubble burst spectacularly in reliever trade value if you compare the 2016 trade deadline to 2017. Free agency is bound to follow suit.

[monty57]

In 2017, there were 27 MLB position players with a WAR of 2 or higher who are 32 or over. 14 had a WAR of 3 or more. There were 126 players 31 and under who had a WAR of 2 or higher, with 76 posting a WAR of 3 or higher.

 

I know people like to question WAR, but I'm just using it to show that it gets risky when players get past their prime. Some guys can still perform at a reasonable level, and a select few (like Votto this year) even put up great seasons in their 30's. It's just risky to count on it, as most players fade out after they hit 31 or 32 years old. Professional sports are a young man's game.

 

Meanwhile, players in their 30's make a lot of money as they are generally out of their pre-arby/arby years and into free agency.

 

When we have a guy through his prime, I'd generally prefer to go year-to-year and probably trade them when they have 1-2 years of team control remaining. Let someone else take the risk of paying them big money for the years past their prime, while we can cash in by trading them at their peak (still relatively cheap and producing in their prime).

[FVBrewerFan]

I think the other key is no trade clause. Most, if not all, of the guys being talked about I would not want any no trade clause in the extensions.

[Outlander]

I like Shaw but hope they don't offer an extension, he will not only be in his 30's if extended but quite frankly has yet to prove he can be a consistent player the whole year. Still like the idea of extending Arcia since he is so young and would still be at or near his prime when he is set for free agency. Don't think I would extend any relievers like Knebel either, wouldn't mind playing it year to year with him. Nelson would have been high on the list but don't see it at this point as his injury is too high risk. If they see Santana in their future plans would certainly be open to an extension there as well.

[jerichoholicninja]

Santana's defense is just so god awful, I can't see Stearns giving him anything long term. Personally, Shaw is the guy I'd prefer.

[MillerParkSouth]

Nelson would have been the obvious candidate, but I hope they don't do anything. Shaw, Santana and Knebel aren't such sure things that we need to extend them right now unless we get a sizable discount. Let's see how they do next year, especially with Villar's flop so near in the rear view mirror.

[brewcrewdue80]

Arcia is tops on an extension. Nelson would have been #2. Santana is #3. After that theres no reason to extend others til next offseason. Villar or Broxton played their way out of Extension worthy.

I know I seen a lot of Shaw and Kneble call fors. Id rather wait a year, 1 to see similar or better production, 2 to gain another year idea on prospects, and 3 trade factors, they both have team contol a long contract extension, could turn in to Brauns where your stuck.

[rcc]

Shaw, Knebel and Arcia for extensions. Santana could be a good trade chip for a starter from the American League. Santana is not a good defensive outfielder but would be a very good DH. Phillips is ready and would fit right in along with Braun and either Broxton or Brinson.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Shaw, Knebel and Arcia for extensions. Santana could be a good trade chip for a starter from the American League. Santana is not a good defensive outfielder but would be a very good DH. Phillips is ready and would fit right in along with Braun and either Broxton or Brinson.

 

I'd be very, very surprised if Santana were traded. He's only 25 years old, and is athletic enough to get better in the outfield. His offensive number paint him as a cornerstone-type player, and he's very inexpensive for several more seasons. Unless the Blue Jays call and are offering Marcus Stroman, I just don't see it happening.

[trwi7]

Can't believe people are advocating extensions for Knebel and Shaw. We already control Shaw through his age 31 season and we control Knebel for 4 more years and given the volatility of relievers, it would be insane to guarantee his contract.

 

If anything, I'd be looking to trade those two because I think they just had their peak seasons. Capitalize on that value instead of trying to extend them unnecessarily.

[Jaylyn]

trwi7, I agree with you. No reason to extend anyone, draft and develop! As far as trading Knebel and Shaw at their highest value. I understand the logic, but I do not see anyone capable of taking their place in the system for next year.

[monty57]

Can't believe people are advocating extensions for Knebel and Shaw. We already control Shaw through his age 31 season and we control Knebel for 4 more years and given the volatility of relievers, it would be insane to guarantee his contract.

 

If anything, I'd be looking to trade those two because I think they just had their peak seasons. Capitalize on that value instead of trying to extend them unnecessarily.

 

I'm with you on Shaw due to age. I understand what you're saying about Knebel, and relievers in general, but the four years of control takes him to age 29 which is right in the middle of his prime. As is the case with any extension, it would need to be a good deal. If it is, then I'd be okay with extending him. Reliever numbers are volatile because of the small number of innings they pitch each season. One or two bad outings can seriously inflate numbers. Also, many relievers just aren't that good and that's why they ended up in the 'pen instead of the rotation. Knebel has great stuff, and he has a history of being able to control it, as is evidenced by his career MiLB WHIP of 0.93. He may not always be as dominant as he was this year, but he is unlikely to "go Turnbow" on us.

 

trwi7, I agree with you. No reason to extend anyone, draft and develop! As far as trading Knebel and Shaw at their highest value. I understand the logic, but I do not see anyone capable of taking their place in the system for next year.

 

Part of the "draft and develop" strategy should be extending good young players. That allows you to "control" players for 7-8 years instead of six, which is very valuable. But you still need to keep developing. Let's say we extend Arcia this offseason, and in a few years we have another good SS who is MLB ready. We then have the option of trading away Arcia, who by that time will be an MLB veteran who is just entering his prime and still has multiple years left of a team-friendly contract. From that trade, we would be able to stock our farm with multiple high-level prospects. All development can't come solely from the draft.

[pacopete4]

Shaw shouldn't be extended until he produces for a full season. I know he was going through a ton of things with his child last year that probably affected his play greatly but even with the Red Sox, he fell off quite a bit in 2016. I would really like to see him perform at a high level for an entire season before we do anything there.

 

I also think Shaw might be our 1B of the future as he gets older if we were to lock him up long term. Not sure I want to go down that road either.

[rcc]

NM

[rcc]

Shaw, Knebel and Arcia for extensions. Santana could be a good trade chip for a starter from the American League. Santana is not a good defensive outfielder but would be a very good DH. Phillips is ready and would fit right in along with Braun and either Broxton or Brinson.

 

I'd be very, very surprised if Santana were traded. He's only 25 years old, and is athletic enough to get better in the outfield. His offensive number paint him as a cornerstone-type player, and he's very inexpensive for several more seasons. Unless the Blue Jays call and are offering Marcus Stroman, I just don't see it happening.

 

Santana and a couple of well regarded prospects for Stroman would be a very good acquisition for Milwaukee. Santana would be their DH instead of the overpaid Bautista, Stroman would move right into the rotation.

[OnaBadger58]

Shaw shouldn't be extended until he produces for a full season. I know he was going through a ton of things with his child last year that probably affected his play greatly but even with the Red Sox, he fell off quite a bit in 2016. I would really like to see him perform at a high level for an entire season before we do anything there.

 

I also think Shaw might be our 1B of the future as he gets older if we were to lock him up long term. Not sure I want to go down that road either.

I agree that the Brewers should wait another year to see if he can put together a full year. Only downside is if he does put together a full season, it will only increase the $ on his next contract. If you lock him up now and he produces, you will be sitting with great value.

[brewcrewdue80]

Can't believe people are advocating extensions for Knebel and Shaw. We already control Shaw through his age 31 season and we control Knebel for 4 more years and given the volatility of relievers, it would be insane to guarantee his contract.

 

If anything, I'd be looking to trade those two because I think they just had their peak seasons. Capitalize on that value instead of trying to extend them unnecessarily.

 

I agree on Kneble for extensions. Has an injury and what does he become? Loses 2 MPH on his FB, how effective does he remain? You'd expect a big return at this time if traded. Extend him and now where does that notion stand? He's clearly going to be a 10+Mil RP as he approaches the end of just the 4 years. The extension would need somewhere in the 12.5-17mil range as the years extend past those 4. At some point, the money to his production takes his trade value from huge to salary relief quality. Talking maybe top 10 prospect in all of baseball, down to not even a top 10 prospect in just an average team's prospect system.

 

On Shaw, it's his age, as well as production throughout a full season as mentioned. You can wait a year or two and see who he really is, the production as well as how your minors is producing. It'd be different if he was 22-24 like Arcia is. But he's not, you've got him through his prime. It'll be at a dollar value he too, like Kneble will bring huge return in trade when that moment comes(assuming the production remains)

 

This is how this franchise competes. It needs to turnover players and not lock them up unless they are likely to produce to that deal, with Age being a big factor. Not to mention where the system sits. We don't need the Travis Shaw being our Pablo Sandavol, when a Travis Shaw is ML ready and now blocked. In this instance: Erceg, Gatewood, and Chad Mclanahan. or a Future 3b pick should he be a Keston Hiura type.

[monty57]

I agree on Kneble for extensions. Has an injury and what does he become? Loses 2 MPH on his FB, how effective does he remain? You'd expect a big return at this time if traded. Extend him and now where does that notion stand? He's clearly going to be a 10+Mil RP as he approaches the end of just the 4 years. The extension would need somewhere in the 12.5-17mil range as the years extend past those 4. At some point, the money to his production takes his trade value from huge to salary relief quality. Talking maybe top 10 prospect in all of baseball, down to not even a top 10 prospect in just an average team's prospect system.

 

Injury and under-performance risk are the reason teams get a significant discount to market value when signing a young player to an extension. There is no way the Brewers should sign him to a full market value deal, but if they get him at a significant discount he would be more valuable in trade, not less.

 

If any player wants to maximize their dollars earned they will not sign an extension, and the team should view them as a short-term player. Players who are willing to give up potential dollars earned in return for the security of a guaranteed contract are the ones who can be signed to a "team-friendly" contract.

[MrTPlush]

I’m just going to say having the #1 farm system in baseball is never going to win you anything. I can assure you not everyone is going to be a 23 year old superstar controllable for 6 years. We will have to keep good players who may walk in FA or just burn out by the time we don’t control them anymore. We also don’t have to try and sell high on every guy who has a career year. Other teams aren’t stupid...if some random person on the internet forum thinks he is a big regression candidate I bet every team’s upper guys know too. So selling high isn’t all that peachy and easy.

 

I feel these types of threads too often turn into trade or extend. Sometimes you take chances and just ride out guys contracts. Nothing wrong with that.

[KeithStone53151]

I’m just going to say having the #1 farm system in baseball is never going to win you anything. I can assure you not everyone is going to be a 23 year old superstar controllable for 6 years. We will have to keep good players who may walk in FA or just burn out by the time we don’t control them anymore. We also don’t have to try and sell high on every guy who has a career year. Other teams aren’t stupid...if some random person on the internet forum thinks he is a big regression candidate I bet every team’s upper guys know too. So selling high isn’t all that peachy and easy.

 

I feel these types of threads too often turn into trade or extend. Sometimes you take chances and just ride out guys contracts. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I'd tend to agree for the most part. It would be very easy to say we should have sold high on Guerra after 2016, but every other team saw a 31 year old SP that is first finding success now, he starts, and he throws a split finger pitch. Hard to say what kind of offers we were getting for him, if any. I mentioned in another thread that the 1-2 year of remaining control mark is probably the sweet spot in terms of maximizing value in a trade.

 

As far as extensions go, I think we are highly likely to be done with extensions for this season. It's possible Santana or Shaw get offered an extension, but I don't expect that to happen. The only deals Stearns has handed out aside from 1 year deals have been very team friendly. Even the offer to Villar at the time was very team friendly. I don't think either Shaw or Santana would take a very team friendly deal, and I honestly don't think those types of talks would happen anyway.