Darvish

[DR28]

Its been reported that Yu has multiple 5 year deals he's sitting on... Im guessing us and the Cubs.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think the Brewers offered Darvish 5. They handed Cain 5(which was considered steep for how his market shaped) so I see no reason they wouldn’t aggressively offer Darvish 5 years too. We know the Brewers want a starter badly, have the money, and keeping prospects would be stellar.

 

All could be very true. The Brewers may very well have the best offer on the table, even with the Twins offer now supposedly out there. I think Darvish likely had his mind made up and was ready to sign somewhere else, but then the Brewers likely made contact soon after announcing the Yelich and Cain deals, and he had second thoughts about ruling them out. I think the Brewers are still very much on the table for Yu, and waiting on his decision may just be holding up a Santana trade. If Yu signs with the Brewers, I think the team would feel more comfortable flipping Santana for prospects, rather than for a MLB starter. But if Yu signs somewhere else, I think Santana is flipped for the best MLB starter they can find.

 

1. Darvish

2. Anderson

3. Davies

4. Chacin

5. Woodruff

 

With Guerra, Gallardo, Suter, Wilkerson, Burnes in reserve and a potential Nelson return in June looks promising.

[Warning Track Power]

https://www.fanragsports.com/inside-baseball-no-end-in-sight-to-baseballs-messy-winter/

Further down in the article it states:

 

One team source suggested they offered $110 million over five years, and was surprised to be told “thanks, but no thanks.”

 

There is your floor.

[chuckiehacks]

One team source suggested they offered $110 million over five years, and was surprised to be told “thanks, but no thanks.”

 

I hope all those Cub fans who are convinced they're getting Yu for 4/90 see that.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I wonder if that was the Brewers' original offer that was speculated to be rejected?

 

So would anyone be mad if the Brewers offered him $115-$120 million for 5 years? That is an enormous financial commitment, but it would mean keeping draft picks and prospects.

[Bench Coach 5]

I wonder if that was the Brewers' original offer that was speculated to be rejected?

 

So would anyone be mad if the Brewers offered him $115-$120 million for 5 years? That is an enormous financial commitment, but it would mean keeping draft picks and prospects.

 

 

I think it's likely that it would take at least 5 years $120 million. It could bite us in the long run, but I am leaning toward saying go for it. Would love it if it could be a but front loaded so easier to unload later if needed.

[FVBrewerFan]

I wonder if that was the Brewers' original offer that was speculated to be rejected?

 

So would anyone be mad if the Brewers offered him $115-$120 million for 5 years? That is an enormous financial commitment, but it would mean keeping draft picks and prospects.

 

That is my guess. The Brewers have made the best offer, because it would make sense then why they're holding out. Honestly, if you were his agent and the best deal on the table is from the Brewers wouldn't you wait to see what the big money teams will do when push comes to shove?

[DR28]

One team source suggested they offered $110 million over five years, and was surprised to be told “thanks, but no thanks.”

 

I hope all those Cub fans who are convinced they're getting Yu for 4/90 see that.

 

I honestly cant believe those morons to the South think they would land Darvish for anything less than $100 mil.

[82brewcrew82]

One team source suggested they offered $110 million over five years, and was surprised to be told “thanks, but no thanks.”

 

I hope all those Cub fans who are convinced they're getting Yu for 4/90 see that.

 

I honestly cant believe those morons to the South think they would land Darvish for anything less than $100 mil.

Well, they are morons.

[DR28]

I honestly cant believe those morons to the South think they would land Darvish for anything less than $100 mil.

Well, they are morons.

 

Haha, true.

 

I would offer both Darvish and Arrieta 5 yrs, $120-$125 mil and see if either takes it... Otherwise move on.

[KeithStone53151]

 

I hope all those Cub fans who are convinced they're getting Yu for 4/90 see that.

 

I honestly cant believe those morons to the South think they would land Darvish for anything less than $100 mil.

Well, they are morons.

 

https://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=6

 

It's absolutely true, go see for yourself. Click on the darvish thread and read through. Cubs fans seem to think it's every players dream to take a significantly under market contract to play for their beloved Cubbies. Their level of delusion is quite something.

[DR28]

Wow... Morons.......

[82brewcrew82]

I honestly cant believe those morons to the South think they would land Darvish for anything less than $100 mil.

Well, they are morons.

 

Haha, true.

 

I would offer both Darvish and Arrieta 5 yrs, $120-$125 mil and see if either takes it... Otherwise move on.

I think I'd go more on Darvish than I would on Arietta. Some folks on these threads are starting to convince me we have better pitching than I think we do. Darvish is what makes sense then.

[KeithStone53151]

https://www.fanragsports.com/inside-baseball-mlb-notes-what-is-red-soxs-backup-plan/

 

Heyman notes we are one of multiple clubs to make a 9 figure offer...

[82brewcrew82]

https://www.fanragsports.com/inside-baseball-mlb-notes-what-is-red-soxs-backup-plan/

 

Heyman notes we are one of multiple clubs to make a 9 figure offer...

Yeah, we are going to have to pay a premium for him.

[Cire52]

Hey, first post.

 

My gut tells me that if Stearns and Co. offered Darvish somewhere in the range of 5 years $115 million and he declined it without encouraging future discussion that he probably doesn't want to sign with us. It's quite the fallback offer if the Rangers and Dodgers are not able to work anything out, but I still think the Dodgers clear Kemp's contract and would put themselves in a position to land Darvish for the same price the Brewers offered, or potentially cheaper.

[KeithStone53151]

Hey, first post.

 

My gut tells me that if Stearns and Co. offered Darvish somewhere in the range of 5 years $115 million and he declined it without encouraging future discussion that he probably doesn't want to sign with us. It's quite the fallback offer if the Rangers and Dodgers are not able to work anything out, but I still think the Dodgers clear Kemp's contract and would put themselves in a position to land Darvish for the same price the Brewers offered, or potentially cheaper.

 

Welcome to the board.

 

Absolutely fair point. I highly doubt Darvish would flat decline the offer and not encourage future discussion. Even if we aren't his first or second or fifth choice of destination, a number exists that would convince him to come to Milwaukee...you can take that to the bank. Also, at the very least, encouraging us to increase our offer likely would only force other teams to increase their offers. There's no benefit for him to completely shut us out...even if there isn't a realistic chance that he'd come to Milwaukee.

[MrTPlush]

I’d wait out if we were the best offer just because it is us. I’d be like, “The Milwaukee Brewers are offering me the biggest deal...baseballs smallest market? Some big market has to do better, don’t they?”

[Roderick]

Hey, first post.

 

.... offered Darvish somewhere in the range of 5 years $115 million and he declined it without encouraging future discussion that he probably doesn't want to sign with us. It's quite the fallback offer ......

 

It is only a fallback offer if the Brewers are willing to be strung along. They could make a move with a different FA signing or make a trade that costs the money that was in the budget for Darvish.

 

The agents and union may be telling the players to not sign waiting for Darvish's big money first, but if a Lynn or Cobb get antsy and sign a deal, that would probably start the ball rolling as it becomes that much closer to the end of the game of musical chairs. And if Darvish only has the Twins and Cubs to play off eachother and the Cubs remain firm, he would not be as well off if he struck earlier.

[brewcrewdue80]

I mean if Lynn supposedly wants to comp himself to 5/110 J.Zimmerman got, 5/125 out there for Arrieta I'd have to at minimum expect Darvish seeking 5/135 or really 6/160. I'd guess Milw put up a 5/120 offer to him but it's as far as they go.

 

It's getting to the point Manfred needs to gather all these guys in a room and hear their sides and determine a date to accept or teams pull back their offers and suspend any FA that isn't signed 30days. The image is terrible right now with what? 9? of top 15 FAs not signed? Pitchers are supposed to report next week yet not one is signed atop the FA list.

 

We're at a stage where as a fan, if I learn that Darvish or Arrieta had offers at or above 5/125 and didn't take it to hold out for more, I'm upset with the MLBPA all around with this collusion crap. That's something that if I were a subscriber to MLBnetwork or what tv brought me baseball games, I'm strongly considering cutting off.

 

Can Anonymous just hack in to Boras' files already and Wiki expose them so we can see the crook and liar he is that mouths off when it's him that's the problem...Not one of his clients have signed this offseason.

[brooks_quichenick]

I mean if Lynn supposedly wants to comp himself to 5/110 J.Zimmerman got, 5/125 out there for Arrieta I'd have to at minimum expect Darvish seeking 5/135 or really 6/160. I'd guess Milw put up a 5/120 offer to him but it's as far as they go.

 

It's getting to the point Manfred needs to gather all these guys in a room and hear their sides and determine a date to accept or teams pull back their offers and suspend any FA that isn't signed 30days. The image is terrible right now with what? 9? of top 15 FAs not signed? Pitchers are supposed to report next week yet not one is signed atop the FA list.

 

We're at a stage where as a fan, if I learn that Darvish or Arrieta had offers at or above 5/125 and didn't take it to hold out for more, I'm upset with the MLBPA all around with this collusion crap. That's something that if I were a subscriber to MLBnetwork or what tv brought me baseball games, I'm strongly considering cutting off.

 

Can Anonymous just hack in to Boras' files already and Wiki expose them so we can see the crook and liar he is that mouths off when it's him that's the problem...Not one of his clients have signed this offseason.

 

Suspend unsigned Free Agent's because Owners/GMs don't want to pay them what they're worth? I have now seen it all.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Suspend unsigned Free Agent's because Owners/GMs don't want to pay them what they're worth? I have now seen it all.

 

LOL, that is EXTREMELY subjective. Is Kemp "worth" the contract he got? Heyward? Cueto? Ellsbury? Those kind of contracts are moronic.

 

Yeah, you can't suspend players for not signing contracts, obviously. But it's been predicted that these huge, long contracts couldn't continue, and this is probably the beginning of that.

[brooks_quichenick]

Suspend unsigned Free Agent's because Owners/GMs don't want to pay them what they're worth? I have now seen it all.

 

LOL, that is EXTREMELY subjective. Is Kemp "worth" the contract he got? Heyward? Cueto? Ellsbury? Those kind of contracts are moronic.

 

Yeah, you can't suspend players for not signing contracts, obviously. But it's been predicted that these huge, long contracts couldn't continue, and this is probably the beginning of that.

 

Free Agency is paying for past performance, for the money they should have gotten while their salaries were suppressed with team control/arb, so yes, Kemp was worth that contract.

 

If the percentage of franchise revenue that goes to players' salaries goes down while franchise revenues go up, then the players are not receiving what they are worth. Salaries should climb along with revenues.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Suspend unsigned Free Agent's because Owners/GMs don't want to pay them what they're worth? I have now seen it all.

 

LOL, that is EXTREMELY subjective. Is Kemp "worth" the contract he got? Heyward? Cueto? Ellsbury? Those kind of contracts are moronic.

 

Yeah, you can't suspend players for not signing contracts, obviously. But it's been predicted that these huge, long contracts couldn't continue, and this is probably the beginning of that.

 

Free Agency is paying for past performance, for the money they should have gotten while their salaries were suppressed with team control/arb, so yes, Kemp was worth that contract.

 

If the percentage of franchise revenue that goes to players' salaries goes down while franchise revenues go up, then the players are not receiving what they are worth. Salaries should climb along with revenues.

 

Follow that philosophy, and before long we're going to be paying $175 for a bleacher ticket and $45 for a hot dog.

[adambr2]

Suspend unsigned Free Agent's because Owners/GMs don't want to pay them what they're worth? I have now seen it all.

 

LOL, that is EXTREMELY subjective. Is Kemp "worth" the contract he got? Heyward? Cueto? Ellsbury? Those kind of contracts are moronic.

 

Yeah, you can't suspend players for not signing contracts, obviously. But it's been predicted that these huge, long contracts couldn't continue, and this is probably the beginning of that.

 

Free Agency is paying for past performance, for the money they should have gotten while their salaries were suppressed with team control/arb, so yes, Kemp was worth that contract.

 

If the percentage of franchise revenue that goes to players' salaries goes down while franchise revenues go up, then the players are not receiving what they are worth. Salaries should climb along with revenues.

 

Free agency is paying for past performance? Yikes, I hope not. Maybe 10 years ago, but any GM worth his salt these days should be putting the future way before the past when doling out contracts in free agency. Maybe that's part of the reason for the standoff, GMs don't want to pay for past performance anymore.

 

I can guarantee Stearns is far more concerned with "what will this player do for the duration of this contract?" rather than "What did this player do with his last contract?"