Extension candidates -- who is next?

[monty57]

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.

 

Having a crap farm system is going to win you a lot less. As a smaller revenue team, the Brewers have to maintain a decent farm in order to continually have pre-arby guys on the roster. Without pre-arby guys on the roster, payroll adds up quickly and we get stuck with holes in the roster that can't be filled.

 

Of course everyone won't become a 23-year-old superstar. Not everyone needs to be. It's great when we get superstars from the farm, but having average MLB players and role players making league minimum is very valuable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't extend our 23-year-old superstars if they are amenable. Age is very important. If we have a guy who has a role on the team and will be a free agent while he is still in his prime, we should look into the possibility of extending him. If he doesn't appear to be in the long-term plans, or if he will be at the end of his prime when team control is up, then we probably shouldn't extend him.

 

I also agree that we shouldn't try to "sell high." This implies that you don't really have a plan, you're just trying to trade someone when you think you can get a good return. That's a horrible strategy. Whatever you're trying to accomplish, you need to have a plan. If you maintain a strong farm, the hope is that you will have replacements available for the guys currently on the MLB roster, allowing you to trade them when their "team control" gets short. This isn't perfect, so there will be times when you hold a tradeable player to free agency, but that should be the exception, not the norm. We should generally be trying to add talent to the franchise, not let top talent walk away for nothing.

[clancyphile]

I'll put Hernan Perez out there for an extension.

 

Versatile - plays eight of the nine positions on the diamond.

Good offensive production - flashed speed in 2016, and power this year.

 

He's only 26, so maybe he could be had for six years, $30 million ($3 million bonus, $4 million/year for 2018, 2019, and 2020 and $5 million/year for 2021, 2022, and 2023).

 

It seems a lot, but Perez is arguably the cornerstone of the bench. If he flops, $5 million a year is not going to kill the team. But it is valuable insurance.

[Jaylyn]

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.

 

Agreed, Arcia and Davies fit that criteria and I would not have an issue extending those two as they have shown improvement since they arrived and I'm a sucker for a upward trending graphs! But Shaw, Knebal and Santana I have my doubts. Maybe it's the ghost of Bill Hall bothering me! It seems like every year we see a player perform outstanding, last year it was Villar, and everyone starts promoting an extension. Yes, Shaw, Knebal and Santana performed very well last year and I sincerely hope that continues, but to run up and offer serious money based on one years performance is reckless. Let's see if Shaw and Knebal can duplicate last year, if they can great, look at extending then. May cost more, but at least we would have track record of more than one year. As far as Santana, that is this teams biggest trade chip.

[trwi7]

Hernan Perez

Good offensive production

 

Really? Must've been when I wasn't watching.

[MillerParkSouth]

Hernan and his sub-.300 OBP are more likely to be traded for minimal return than extended.

[clancyphile]

Hernan Perez

Good offensive production

 

Really? Must've been when I wasn't watching.

 

I didn't say great, I said good.

 

He's posted a .421 SLG over the last two seasons, added to 47 stolen bases and a .266 batting average. His OBP skills are not good, but he's got some pop, and he plays every position except catcher.

 

Not a starter, but a cornerstone of the bench.

[monty57]

Perez has been a nice player for the Brewers during his tenure, but I think we'll have enough coming up from the farm over the next few years that our bench should be able to be filled up with talented pre-arby guys, leaving salary room to extend full-time players and sign free agents.

 

It will be interesting to see what Stearns decides to do with second base. If he brings someone else in, we aren't going to keep Perez, Villar and Sogard. They just signed Sogard, so he's going to make the opening day roster, so one of Villar and Perez will probably not be around next year.

 

Perez is the safer bet, but would also have value in trade. Villar is the higher upside, but could crash and burn. At this point, we probably wouldn't get much in trade for him.

 

If Stearns fills 2B from outside the organization, I'd probably see if I could flip Perez for pitching help and go into the season with Sogard and Villar as the utility guys off the bench.

[monty57]

Agreed, Arcia and Davies fit that criteria and I would not have an issue extending those two as they have shown improvement since they arrived and I'm a sucker for a upward trending graphs! But Shaw, Knebal and Santana I have my doubts. Maybe it's the ghost of Bill Hall bothering me! It seems like every year we see a player perform outstanding, last year it was Villar, and everyone starts promoting an extension. Yes, Shaw, Knebal and Santana performed very well last year and I sincerely hope that continues, but to run up and offer serious money based on one years performance is reckless. Let's see if Shaw and Knebal can duplicate last year, if they can great, look at extending then. May cost more, but at least we would have track record of more than one year. As far as Santana, that is this teams biggest trade chip.

 

Yeah, there's risk involved. That's why a lot of the deals don't happen, and when one is signed everyone says "I can't believe he signed that cheap of a deal. That's a steal for the team."

 

People tend to look at the deals free agents are signing, give that value to our pre-arby/arby guys, and underestimate the risk the team is taking on by signing a long-term, guaranteed deal. When one works out (like Lucroy), people laugh at the player for signing the deal, seemingly forgetting about the times a player is extended and it doesn't pan out for the team.

 

When I promote signing an extension, I am looking at deals that give a significant discount to the team. I'm sure that's what was offered to Villar, and that's why he didn't sign. He thought he was worth more then the team was willing to guarantee. That looks like it worked out for the team, but even if he had signed (and doesn't return to 2016 form), we would have had an overpaid utility IF for a few more years, it wouldn't have hurt the team too badly. He's young, so he still has room to regain his form unlike signing a guy into his 30's who is eventually going to decline.

 

If Knebel would take a "Lucroy deal," then I'd sign. If he demands the extension pay him anywhere near what he would make by going year-to-year, then we just go year-to-year. An extension may go bad for the Brewers, but I think Knebel's floor is a MLB middle reliever, so if we get him at a discount he might be a slightly overpaid middle reliever, but it shouldn't be a complete bust. There's risk, but if we want to win we need a strong "back of the bullpen," and I think the risk of an extension is less than what we would incur by trying to fill the back of the bullpen through free agency.

 

I won't be heartbroken whichever way Stearns decides to go, but I think he'll try to get him on a "team-friendly" deal.

[KeithStone53151]

Hernan and his sub-.300 OBP are more likely to be traded for minimal return than extended.

 

You can't simply look at OBP, OPS, and WAR and determine the value of a player. It isn't nearly that simply. Having Perez allowed us to roll an 8 man bullpen and a 1b only as one of 4 bench bats that posted an 850ish OPS(I'm too lazy to look up the exact number). That alone has a ton of value, even if he's an awful hitter. Perez also rolls with a decent AVG despite the low OBP and has significant pop in his bat. The OBP is an obvious flaw in his game, but no player is perfect and every player can improve in some aspect of their game. I think you would be extremely surprised at the type of return Perez would get if we shopped him, that said I'm not interested in extending him. Dubon/Orf/sogard are available to fill that super utility role. Orf and Sogard wouldn't be able to play CF, but we'll have 2 of Brinson/Phillips/Broxton on the roster to fill that spot and still maintain a good 4 man bench with Aguilar. Perez is a decent player and fills a need, but we shouldn't get in the habit of extending decent players. That's Melvin-type GMing.

[homer]

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.

 

Yeah there's absolutely no reason to extend Shaw particularly with Erceg waiting in the wings.

[KeithStone53151]

Perez has been a nice player for the Brewers during his tenure, but I think we'll have enough coming up from the farm over the next few years that our bench should be able to be filled up with talented pre-arby guys, leaving salary room to extend full-time players and sign free agents.

 

It will be interesting to see what Stearns decides to do with second base. If he brings someone else in, we aren't going to keep Perez, Villar and Sogard. They just signed Sogard, so he's going to make the opening day roster, so one of Villar and Perez will probably not be around next year.

 

Perez is the safer bet, but would also have value in trade. Villar is the higher upside, but could crash and burn. At this point, we probably wouldn't get much in trade for him.

 

If Stearns fills 2B from outside the organization, I'd probably see if I could flip Perez for pitching help and go into the season with Sogard and Villar as the utility guys off the bench.

 

This makes sense, I think it's more likely we roll with Villar than sign someone like Walker. But if we did make a signing, someone would have to go. With a projected young rotation, we'll need 8 in the bullpen more often than not.

[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.

 

Having a crap farm system is going to win you a lot less. As a smaller revenue team, the Brewers have to maintain a decent farm in order to continually have pre-arby guys on the roster. Without pre-arby guys on the roster, payroll adds up quickly and we get stuck with holes in the roster that can't be filled.

 

Of course everyone won't become a 23-year-old superstar. Not everyone needs to be. It's great when we get superstars from the farm, but having average MLB players and role players making league minimum is very valuable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't extend our 23-year-old superstars if they are amenable. Age is very important. If we have a guy who has a role on the team and will be a free agent while he is still in his prime, we should look into the possibility of extending him. If he doesn't appear to be in the long-term plans, or if he will be at the end of his prime when team control is up, then we probably shouldn't extend him.

 

I also agree that we shouldn't try to "sell high." This implies that you don't really have a plan, you're just trying to trade someone when you think you can get a good return. That's a horrible strategy. Whatever you're trying to accomplish, you need to have a plan. If you maintain a strong farm, the hope is that you will have replacements available for the guys currently on the MLB roster, allowing you to trade them when their "team control" gets short. This isn't perfect, so there will be times when you hold a tradeable player to free agency, but that should be the exception, not the norm. We should generally be trying to add talent to the franchise, not let top talent walk away for nothing.

 

Well if my farm system is less than stellar(middle of the pack) because I graduated a bunch of successful guys to the MLB level I wouldn’t call that a bad thing. I’m all for trading guys to replenish it in the right situation. However some of the names being thrown around are very controllable and some of our best players. Even non controllable players(like 2011 Prince Fielder) probably shouldn’t be traded if you are putting together a really good team.

 

Generally speaking I wouldn’t trade major players when competing or looking to compete. I’d trade the likes of Gomez/Lucroy/Smith/Thornburg when we seem to be at our low point and not looking to contend soon.

[monty57]

Well if my farm system is less than stellar(middle of the pack) because I graduated a bunch of successful guys to the MLB level I wouldn’t call that a bad thing. I’m all for trading guys to replenish it in the right situation. However some of the names being thrown around are very controllable and some of our best players. Even non controllable players(like 2011 Prince Fielder) probably shouldn’t be traded if you are putting together a really good team.

 

Generally speaking I wouldn’t trade major players when competing or looking to compete. I’d trade the likes of Gomez/Lucroy/Smith/Thornburg when we seem to be at our low point and not looking to contend soon.

 

I just propose that it doesn't have to be either/or. We can and should focus on adding talent to both the MLB team and the farm. The promotion of a prospect will weaken the farm (because he's no longer there), but it also allows us to trade the player he's replacing, which could add talent back to the farm. We cannot sustain MLB success without having quite a few pre-arby guys on the roster at all times to offset the higher salaried players. The only way to continue to have quite a few pre-arby guys on the roster is to continually promote guys from the farm.

 

The goal of the farm is to promote players who can help the MLB team, but you will not be able to continue to promote players to help the MLB team if you do not continually add talent to the farm. This can be done multiple ways (draft, international signings, trade) and we need to continue to look at every way to add talent even after we are out of the "rebuild" phase.

 

At least for myself, if I mention trading one of our current best players, I am looking at the future. i.e. Shaw should be traded if Erceg or someone else is ready to replace him in a couple of years. I can't think of many circumstances that would make me think Shaw should be traded now.

 

Stearns will always have to look at things on an individual basis. Maybe in one case it makes sense to trade the vet, while in another case it makes sense to hold him to free agency. I just think that in general we should try to stay on a tack where more often than not we will be able to trade vets when they have 1-2 years of "team control" remaining. The only way to do that while maintaining success at the MLB level is to continue to focus on adding talent to all levels of the franchise.

[gregmag]

What Monty said. All of it.

 

Age is a massively important factor in thinking about extensions. We're really lucky that Shaw didn't get to the majors and establish himself until he was a little older. We should be grateful for that good fortune and just pay him year to year.

 

I'd seriously explore extensions with Arcia, Santana, and Davies. I'd be more inclined to wait another year on Knebel. The fact that the team explored an extension with Villar last year and didn't get it done should reassure us that Stearns isn't inclined to overrate his players too much.

 

Sometime in the past few months Perez went from being underrated to being overrated. That happens. His versatility gives him real value, but I think he's a guy who fills out your roster, not a guy you build around. Given that overplaying him was one of CC's few big mistakes IMHO, I hope Stearns can get something for him.

[MVP2110]

If i had to guess i would say Santana is the most likely candidate, with Arcia(although it wouldn't shock me if they dealt him) Knebal, Davies, or Shaw also being possibilities. Heck wouldn't even shock me if they signed Brinson or Phillips to an extension.

[rickh150]

Maybe Santana..... something with a couple of reasonable Club options at the end of it.

[clancyphile]

What Monty said. All of it.

 

Age is a massively important factor in thinking about extensions. We're really lucky that Shaw didn't get to the majors and establish himself until he was a little older. We should be grateful for that good fortune and just pay him year to year.

 

I'd seriously explore extensions with Arcia, Santana, and Davies. I'd be more inclined to wait another year on Knebel. The fact that the team explored an extension with Villar last year and didn't get it done should reassure us that Stearns isn't inclined to overrate his players too much.

 

Sometime in the past few months Perez went from being underrated to being overrated. That happens. His versatility gives him real value, but I think he's a guy who fills out your roster, not a guy you build around. Given that overplaying him was one of CC's few big mistakes IMHO, I hope Stearns can get something for him.

 

Agree that Santana and Davies are two to extend, if possible. Maybe Nelson as well, even with the injury.

 

Arcia, I want to wait a year or two. I've been unsure of his bat ever since he posted a .723 OPS at Colorado Springs. That's just a red flag. If the offense improves, sure. If not... I'd go year-to-year.

 

Perez... I see his versatility, power, and speed as a cornerstone on the bench. The fact that his OBP is batting average-dependent is probably what keeps him on the bench, but still, he is a relatively known quantity.

[brewcrewdue80]

You extend and use Arcia because of GG ability Defense at SS. The batting ability 1 season to the next put him in the Adrelton Simmons category. 2-3 WAR here and there but 7WAR on a good batting season which Simmons has now had 2 of in 6 seasons played.

Simmons signed a 7/56mil contract essentially at the stage Arcia is at now. One could wonder on an 8/56mil contract to him Locking him up til age 30/31 season. No doubt Arcia would perform higher value than that amount but a dollar sign around that would be hard to see him not accept. Throw in mutual option for 9th year at say 16mil. Or maybe two team options at say 16 and 20. The guy is the face of this franchise very soon.

[monty57]

Arcia was also very young in AAA and I think he was brought up a season too soon. As bcd80 said, he's worth an extension on defense alone, but I wouldn't count out his bat. He has plenty of time for that to continue to improve.