Nolan Arenado

[Warning Track Power]

There is no way I get into a bidding war for Nolan Arenado. We can't afford it in cash, and we can't afford it in prospects.

 

Our farm team is our future, once we start draining it for a 2 year rental who we don't know the effects of not playing 81 games at Coor's Field, it gets too damn risky.

 

It's fun to live in a dream world, where we can acquire guys like this, but it just isn't realistic.

While I am a proponent of trading for Arenado, I do agree with this sentiment. I just think a lot of Brewer fans, casual and diehards, are sick of the economics of baseball where the Brewers can not only not trade for a player like Arenado, but are also unlikely to be able to afford their franchise cornerstone in Yelich.

 

A day of reckoning is coming for this sport and I think it is coming sooner than later.

[pacopete4]

 

A day of reckoning is coming for this sport and I think it is coming sooner than later.

 

I would be curious as to why you think this? I don't really see any evidence in it changing.

[bill hAll Star]

DJ LeMahieu proved last year that the "Coors Field Effect" is arguably massively overrated. Arenado would likely be a stud wherever he plays. You cannot aggregate his road splits into a full season and expect that to be his stat line. Sometimes guys are just better hitters in their home park, regardless of where that park is.

 

DJ is an outlier that benefited from the juiced ball with his style of hitting and going to an easier home run ballpark. He had 19 HR there which significantly boosted his numbers. He was perfect for hitting the ball over that short porch in RF.

 

Arenado's numbers would drop significantly other than maybe hitting homers at Fenway or Yankee Stadium.

 

He wouldn't be bad, but he'd fall off a bit.

 

Man, when I stumped for the Brewers to sign LeMahieu last offseason, all I was met with is "he's a Coors Field guy, he'll be terrible outside of Coors." Well, guess what ... outlier or not, LeMahieu was a stud for the Yankees. When you are a good player, you're a good player anywhere. Arenado didn't get that huge deal just because he can hit well at Coors. He got it because he's a stud. And he's going to be a stud in Arlington, Washington D.C., Milwaukee, or wherever else he ends up.

 

 

 

Except St. Louis. If he ends up in St. Louis, he's gonna suck

 

He has good bat skills so he would not be a bad player anywhere.

 

But he is in the class of the LaStella, McNeil, Sogard where the juiced ball took a guy that hit the ball hard to all fields and was a .290/.340/.400 type of guy to a superstar because a lot of those lineouts to the right fielder became doubles to the gap or went over the fence. Especially in New York.

[wildcat2237]

 

A day of reckoning is coming for this sport and I think it is coming sooner than later.

 

I would be curious as to why you think this? I don't really see any evidence in it changing.

 

Agreed. Baseball is actually doing very well, at least regionally.

 

Specifically, the TV numbers are excellent and thus the TV deals are big money. Attendance is also healthy, with the exception of Miami and Tampa.

 

So unfortunately, until people decide to watch something else on TV in the summer, nothing is going to change.

 

Baseball fills the regional summer TV programming void and has for many years.

[Warning Track Power]

 

A day of reckoning is coming for this sport and I think it is coming sooner than later.

 

I would be curious as to why you think this? I don't really see any evidence in it changing.

Keep in mind this is just my opinion. I absolutely love baseball and yet I am becoming less tolerant of MLB's inactivity toward fixing the economic inequalities between small and large markets and overreactions to appease casual fans.

 

In regard to economics, Yelich should finish his career as a Brewer. However, the economics of baseball preclude this from occurring. Unlike the NBA or NFL where the Bucks can offer Giannis the most money and the Packers can keep Aaron Rodgers for his entire career, the Brewers and other small markets constantly lose the Yelichs and Coles of the sport to the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox of the sport. I am tired of it and I think other fans are losing interest in the sport because of it. Going a step further, talking to friends, coworkers, colleagues, etc, that don't live in Wisconsin and the only diehard fans of MLB anymore are fans of large market teams. I can't find a Royal, Rockie, Pirate, Ray, Mariner, Indian fan to save my life. Whereas in my group of closest friends I have live and die with the outcome of the game fans of the Chiefs, Raiders, 49ers, Packers, Broncos, Lions and Dolphins. I firmly attribute this to all teams being on equal economic footing.

 

In regard to the overreactions to appease casual fans, I'm fine with the four finger intentional walk. However, the idea of pitch clocks, mound visit limitations, three batter minimum, etc...just stop. Not everyone loves baseball and that is fine. Why change it for the people that spend the most on consuming the sport? You don't see soccer trying to force more scoring by changing the rules to accommodate Americans that find it boring.

 

I know this may come off as soapbox, but I just see a day coming soon where fans like all of us become so disgusted by watching the sport that we loved so much be changed so substantially by rule changes and being disgusted by watching Yankees-Dodgers World Series year after year.

 

Rant over.

[brewmann04]

I agree Warning Track to much stuff being added when I was a kid the games were like 2 2-30 hours

[tmwiese55]

At some point they really do just have to buckle down and level the economics much close to what the NFL and NBA have done. It's kind of surprising it's gone on this long. The tax and all that is progress but they need to take one more big step at some point. IMO it shouldn't be that difficult assuming major changes don't need a unanimous approval (I don't the rules) but assuming majority or 2/3 vote only is needed it shouldn't be too hard to get the remaining 23ish teams to vote together to limit the power of the mega markets.

[bill hAll Star]

At some point they really do just have to buckle down and level the economics much close to what the NFL and NBA have done. It's kind of surprising it's gone on this long. The tax and all that is progress but they need to take one more big step at some point. IMO it shouldn't be that difficult assuming major changes don't need a unanimous approval (I don't the rules) but assuming majority or 2/3 vote only is needed it shouldn't be too hard to get the remaining 23ish teams to vote together to limit the power of the mega markets.

 

Try convincing the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, etc. who believe that they carry the entire league (and really, they do) to go for that.

 

Especially considering they basically fund the A's/Rays/Marlins as those teams just sit on their pile of revenue sharing and if the rules changed, they'd maybe have to spend some of their money...

[Warning Track Power]

At some point they really do just have to buckle down and level the economics much close to what the NFL and NBA have done. It's kind of surprising it's gone on this long. The tax and all that is progress but they need to take one more big step at some point. IMO it shouldn't be that difficult assuming major changes don't need a unanimous approval (I don't the rules) but assuming majority or 2/3 vote only is needed it shouldn't be too hard to get the remaining 23ish teams to vote together to limit the power of the mega markets.

 

Try convincing the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, etc. who believe that they carry the entire league (and really, they do) to go for that.

 

Especially considering they basically fund the A's/Rays/Marlins as those teams just sit on their pile of revenue sharing and if the rules changed, they'd maybe have to spend some of their money...

This is also a major issue and MLB should focus on what to do about those organizations because they are ultimately impacting teams like the Brewers who are small market and constantly striving to win. It appears finding owners who like winning like Attanasio, even if it is at a possible sacrifice of some profit, is imperative.

[tmwiese55]

At some point they really do just have to buckle down and level the economics much close to what the NFL and NBA have done. It's kind of surprising it's gone on this long. The tax and all that is progress but they need to take one more big step at some point. IMO it shouldn't be that difficult assuming major changes don't need a unanimous approval (I don't the rules) but assuming majority or 2/3 vote only is needed it shouldn't be too hard to get the remaining 23ish teams to vote together to limit the power of the mega markets.

 

Try convincing the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, etc. who believe that they carry the entire league (and really, they do) to go for that.

 

Especially considering they basically fund the A's/Rays/Marlins as those teams just sit on their pile of revenue sharing and if the rules changed, they'd maybe have to spend some of their money...

 

Well that's where I said the majority vote should be easy and really 2/3 should be easy too. There's like 5-6 megamarket teams that would have that attitude but the rest should be all together on balancing. If it requires unanimous vote then yea it's dead in the water, but I can't imagine it would. Every other league has mega markets too and they all agreed to or made to balance out for the betterment of the league and game. All I'm saying is it really shouldn't be difficult to get 20 teams to vote in favor of a more balanced system like the NFL and NBA.

[brewcrewdue80]

Well for competitive balance take your 15markets split and have the top 15 have players exposed earning 5-14mil for example. Take a draft worst to 1st record wise. It'll be like Rule 5. So say Pitts takes a player from NY, NY can protect a player from the example range. NY would still be responsible for that players salary Pittsburgh picked. The 6yrs control still exists. Unless player is on contract the contract length exists. After the season NY having another year control or more are returned this picked player. All controlled players are returned to the top market teams for the next season. So rinse repeat. 1 round. 1 picked and paid for player. The draft would happen a week before winter meetings so all teams involved would now know where they stand payroll wise for upcoming season. Top markets who paid for their player drafted would have that payroll obligation not count on luxury tax. I'll have to come back after contract research for team fits and salary fits to be drafted.

Quick idea would be Milw drafting Corey Seager for the 2020 season. But I doubt he'd make it to Milw?

 

Just nix the competitive balance rewards in drafts and implement this. Rather than a crapshoot at teams coming out ahead in a draft pick, you are picking very good players for 1yr rental.

[JohnBriggs12]

The equality of revenues in the NFL goes all the way back to the names like Halas in Chicago and Mara in New York who understood that the league was only as strong as it's weakest franchise. Baseball has always been run by owners who don't see beyond their self interest. That goes back to guys like Walter O'Malley, P.K.Wrigley etc. For all you Cub fans that like to brag how lovable your team is and how you can fill Miller Park, note that the franchise in Milwaukee would still be the Braves if not for the greed of guys like Wrigley and O'Malley. Wrigley went so far as recruiting young Chicago businessmen who were his neighbors to buy the Braves and remove them from nearby Milwaukee (only after they first tried to wrest control of the White Sox and get them out of Chicago). I've long since given up hope for an equal playing field. I only celebrate baseball championships won by lower revenue teams. The others won by the big boys are simply lesser achievements. It's like a high school that has an enrollment of 3,000 dominating conferences with schools with enrollments of 1,500. It's just not impressive.

[CrewFanBrewMan69]

The Cubs and Rockies have discussed a Bryant-Arenado 1 for 1 swap now that Bryant’s grievance is settled with Colorado paying $6-8 million a year. And Passan says Arenado would love to be a Cub..... don’t know how I feel about that. Think it would be pretty fair and don’t know if it makes the Cubs much better. They also are stuck with a potentially much larger commitment for a guy that’s almost 30.

[wntrtxn21]

The Cubs and Rockies have discussed a Bryant-Arenado 1 for 1 swap now that Bryant’s grievance is settled with Colorado paying $6-8 million a year. And Passan says Arenado would love to be a Cub..... don’t know how I feel about that. Think it would be pretty fair and don’t know if it makes the Cubs much better. They also are stuck with a potentially much larger commitment for a guy that’s almost 30.

 

What sense would such a trade make? The Cubs get a guy owed a huge amount of money (pushing them in lux. tax territory that they are desperately trying to avoid) who will be gone in two years. The Rockies get a little salary relief (about $8M the first year and less the second) but Bryant is also gone in two years.

[TJseven7]

The equality of revenues in the NFL goes all the way back to the names like Halas in Chicago and Mara in New York who understood that the league was only as strong as it's weakest franchise. Baseball has always been run by owners who don't see beyond their self interest. That goes back to guys like Walter O'Malley, P.K.Wrigley etc. For all you Cub fans that like to brag how lovable your team is and how you can fill Miller Park, note that the franchise in Milwaukee would still be the Braves if not for the greed of guys like Wrigley and O'Malley. Wrigley went so far as recruiting young Chicago businessmen who were his neighbors to buy the Braves and remove them from nearby Milwaukee (only after they first tried to wrest control of the White Sox and get them out of Chicago). I've long since given up hope for an equal playing field. I only celebrate baseball championships won by lower revenue teams. The others won by the big boys are simply lesser achievements. It's like a high school that has an enrollment of 3,000 dominating conferences with schools with enrollments of 1,500. It's just not impressive.

 

This is very true for me as well. I honestly think any title is fine as long as its not the Dodgers Yankees Red Sox or Cubs. (I was ok with the 1st one because no one should lose forever but them flopping after that one has been fantastic) Nats and Astros have been a small victory. Astros not so much in retrospect. Even they are top 10 spenders but at least they aren't top 4.

 

I'm happy to root for a mid market team. I grumble about a few choices and a few passes but I'm not one to expect a 150mil payroll and I'm happy that my team has to beat the odds because if we actually won one it would be incredibly sweet.

 

You look at these 200 mil teams and, personally, I actually laugh at them for losing. You can take MKEs team and add 4 Cole/Rendon level players and you still can't win? It's embarassing for them. They must be run miserably. I think I've been an in the shadows Rays fan for years because I want to see them send NYY and Boston home.

 

The NFL model is the best though. If you hired a great GM and a rising coach any team in that entire league could be a SB contender in 4 years. Even Cincy.

[KCBrewerfan34]

The Cubs and Rockies have discussed a Bryant-Arenado 1 for 1 swap now that Bryant’s grievance is settled with Colorado paying $6-8 million a year. And Passan says Arenado would love to be a Cub..... don’t know how I feel about that. Think it would be pretty fair and don’t know if it makes the Cubs much better. They also are stuck with a potentially much larger commitment for a guy that’s almost 30.

 

What sense would such a trade make? The Cubs get a guy owed a huge amount of money (pushing them in lux. tax territory that they are desperately trying to avoid) who will be gone in two years. The Rockies get a little salary relief (about $8M the first year and less the second) but Bryant is also gone in two years.

 

WTS is Arenado loves CHICAGO and would not opt out.

[CrewFanBrewMan69]

The Cubs and Rockies have discussed a Bryant-Arenado 1 for 1 swap now that Bryant’s grievance is settled with Colorado paying $6-8 million a year. And Passan says Arenado would love to be a Cub..... don’t know how I feel about that. Think it would be pretty fair and don’t know if it makes the Cubs much better. They also are stuck with a potentially much larger commitment for a guy that’s almost 30.

 

What sense would such a trade make? The Cubs get a guy owed a huge amount of money (pushing them in lux. tax territory that they are desperately trying to avoid) who will be gone in two years. The Rockies get a little salary relief (about $8M the first year and less the second) but Bryant is also gone in two years.

I’m guessing the sense would be you’re locking in a star 3B for longer when they haven’t been able to with Bryant and you’re getting him for a likely cheaper price than Bryant will cost (assuming the $6-8 million thing is true). Arenado wouldn’t opt out, apparently, if traded to Chicago. Arenado has also been more steady, healthy and valuable recently. Though if health is equal I think Bryant is a little better. Arenado seems like the safer long term bet though.

[Warning Track Power]

Let's say the Rockies would accept Turang and Ashby for Arenado if the Brewers were to take on the entire remaining contract (7 years, $224m). Two questions:

 

1. Is it worth it for the Brewers to take this trade, given the likelihood Arenado will opt out after 2021? The Brewers would pay Arenado 2 years $70 million, keep him in this competitive window, and take the risk he doesn't opt out.

2. Should the Brewers make this type of deal to supplement Yelich prior to his impending FA after 2022? The farm system is already ranked 30th in a lot of publications. If they can use that farm system to acquire another elite, albeit highly paid, talent, does it make sense?

 

In my mind, the Brewers system won't allow for them to acquire the TOR arm, so why not load up on O even if it means taking on an enormous deal.

[adambr2]

Let's say the Rockies would accept Turang and Ashby for Arenado if the Brewers were to take on the entire remaining contract (7 years, $224m). Two questions:

 

1. Is it worth it for the Brewers to take this trade, given the likelihood Arenado will opt out after 2021? The Brewers would pay Arenado 2 years $70 million, keep him in this competitive window, and take the risk he doesn't opt out.

2. Should the Brewers make this type of deal to supplement Yelich prior to his impending FA after 2022? The farm system is already ranked 30th in a lot of publications. If they can use that farm system to acquire another elite, albeit highly paid, talent, does it make sense?

 

In my mind, the Brewers system won't allow for them to acquire the TOR arm, so why not load up on O even if it means taking on an enormous deal.

 

This is basically doing the Anthony Rendon contract only also giving up our best prospects to do it. It's just not happening.

[Warning Track Power]

Let's say the Rockies would accept Turang and Ashby for Arenado if the Brewers were to take on the entire remaining contract (7 years, $224m). Two questions:

 

1. Is it worth it for the Brewers to take this trade, given the likelihood Arenado will opt out after 2021? The Brewers would pay Arenado 2 years $70 million, keep him in this competitive window, and take the risk he doesn't opt out.

2. Should the Brewers make this type of deal to supplement Yelich prior to his impending FA after 2022? The farm system is already ranked 30th in a lot of publications. If they can use that farm system to acquire another elite, albeit highly paid, talent, does it make sense?

 

In my mind, the Brewers system won't allow for them to acquire the TOR arm, so why not load up on O even if it means taking on an enormous deal.

 

This is basically doing the Anthony Rendon contract only also giving up our best prospects to do it. It's just not happening.

While unlikely I know, my thought on the matter is that the Brewers aren't likely to attract this type of talent via FA so they need to be acquired via trade. Losing top prospects from a gutted system would certainly stink but put another way, how pumped would we all be to have signed Arenado or Rendon to a 7 years $224 million contract, even if it did have an opt-out after year 2?

[clancyphile]

Let's say the Rockies would accept Turang and Ashby for Arenado if the Brewers were to take on the entire remaining contract (7 years, $224m). Two questions:

 

1. Is it worth it for the Brewers to take this trade, given the likelihood Arenado will opt out after 2021? The Brewers would pay Arenado 2 years $70 million, keep him in this competitive window, and take the risk he doesn't opt out.

2. Should the Brewers make this type of deal to supplement Yelich prior to his impending FA after 2022? The farm system is already ranked 30th in a lot of publications. If they can use that farm system to acquire another elite, albeit highly paid, talent, does it make sense?

 

In my mind, the Brewers system won't allow for them to acquire the TOR arm, so why not load up on O even if it means taking on an enormous deal.

 

1. For Turang and Ashby? Yes, it would. It would be a bear on the payroll side, but there are enough young arms in the system to get by those two years. Arcia gets DFAed for the 40-man spot, but that's OK.

 

ss: Urias

2b: Hiura

lf: Yelich

3b: Arenado

c: Narvaez

rf: Garcia

1b: Smoak/Braun

cf: Cain

bench: Pina, Sogard, Gyorko, Gamel, Smoak/Braun

rotation: Woodruff, Lindblom, B. Anderson, Houser, Lauer

bullpen: Hader, Knebel, Peralta, Suter, Claudio, Rasmussen, Andrews, Yardley

 

That is the favorite to win the NL Central in 2020.

 

For 2021, pick up Braun's mutual option, and it looks like this:

 

ss: Urias

2b: Hiura

lf: Yelich

3b: Arenado

c: Narvaez

rf: Garcia

1b: Braun

cf: Cain

bench: Pina, Sogard, Wilson, Hummel, Taylor

rotation: Woodruff, Houser, Lauer, Lindblom, File

bullpen: Hader, Knebel, Suter, Peralta, Burnes, Rasmussen, QTC, Andrews

 

Still a contender.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Let's say the Rockies would accept Turang and Ashby for Arenado if the Brewers were to take on the entire remaining contract (7 years, $224m). Two questions:

 

1. Is it worth it for the Brewers to take this trade, given the likelihood Arenado will opt out after 2021? The Brewers would pay Arenado 2 years $70 million, keep him in this competitive window, and take the risk he doesn't opt out.

2. Should the Brewers make this type of deal to supplement Yelich prior to his impending FA after 2022? The farm system is already ranked 30th in a lot of publications. If they can use that farm system to acquire another elite, albeit highly paid, talent, does it make sense?

 

In my mind, the Brewers system won't allow for them to acquire the TOR arm, so why not load up on O even if it means taking on an enormous deal.

 

1. For Turang and Ashby? Yes, it would. It would be a bear on the payroll side, but there are enough young arms in the system to get by those two years. Arcia gets DFAed for the 40-man spot, but that's OK.

 

ss: Urias

2b: Hiura

lf: Yelich

3b: Arenado

c: Narvaez

rf: Garcia

1b: Smoak/Braun

cf: Cain

bench: Pina, Sogard, Gyorko, Gamel, Smoak/Braun

rotation: Woodruff, Lindblom, B. Anderson, Houser, Lauer

bullpen: Hader, Knebel, Peralta, Suter, Claudio, Rasmussen, Andrews, Yardley

 

That is the favorite to win the NL Central in 2020.

 

Clancy, come on man. I know your new love affair is with Andrews, but while there is more than a 0% chance he sees big league innings this year, it isn't much higher than that. Rasmussen stands a better shot, but it is still probably slim. Yardley might be next on the DFA list, as he's out of options. You are missing Phelps and Black as well, who are projected to have big pen roles.

[bill hAll Star]

Let's say the Rockies would accept Turang and Ashby for Arenado if the Brewers were to take on the entire remaining contract (7 years, $224m). Two questions:

 

1. Is it worth it for the Brewers to take this trade, given the likelihood Arenado will opt out after 2021? The Brewers would pay Arenado 2 years $70 million, keep him in this competitive window, and take the risk he doesn't opt out.

2. Should the Brewers make this type of deal to supplement Yelich prior to his impending FA after 2022? The farm system is already ranked 30th in a lot of publications. If they can use that farm system to acquire another elite, albeit highly paid, talent, does it make sense?

 

In my mind, the Brewers system won't allow for them to acquire the TOR arm, so why not load up on O even if it means taking on an enormous deal.

 

This is basically doing the Anthony Rendon contract only also giving up our best prospects to do it. It's just not happening.

 

Neither of those prospects are supposed to be all that great.

 

It's unlikely that this move would ever happen but if it was available...sign me up. Sure, I'd rather have just signed Rendon and only given up a comp pick, but if the price to getting a star player was, "OK, also throw in these likely lower-ceiling prospects" I'd be OK with it.

 

Depends on one's opinion of Turang, of course. I can't really see projecting him to be a star but if you're certain he's going to be a 50+ guy, then maybe I'd think twice.

[3and2Fastball]

I’d be all for the Brewers taking on Arenado’s contract, absolutely. Chances are, Mark won’t want to do that though...

[Madhawk23]

I see a report out today that the Cubs are highly motivated to work out a deal with the Rockies to get Arenado - in exchange for Bryant and a prospect. Ugh....if that actually materializes. I would imagine that the Cubs would need Nolen to waive his opt-out clause in his contract that comes up in a couple of years to make this type of a move.

 

If this happens, I guess we just have to hope that his numbers take a dip when he doesn't get to play 1/2 his games in the thin air of Colorado.