If it comes down to Woody or Corbin

[brewmann04]

If it comes down to keep one pitcher who is your Choice ?

[adambr2]

Burnes.

[BrewCrewBlueDevil]

Burnes

[jjfanec]

Burnes and I dont think it is really all that close. Burnes is younger and better. That is to take nothing from Woodruff but Burnes' last two seasons have been about as good as it gets (albeit one season was shortened)

[Lathund]

Burnes is the better and younger pitcher. He is also the more difficult one to extend because of that, so the choice eventually might be Woody or neither.

[MrTPlush]

Burnes is the better and younger pitcher. He is also the more difficult one to extend because of that, so the choice eventually might be Woody or neither.

 

I think they might have kicked the tires on Woodruff if extending Yelich wouldn't have happened. Back end of the deal may have been less than pleasant, but who knows with how long some pitchers stay elite. Now that Yelich is not only extended, but a shell of his former self...yah, I don't think they can afford it or risk both sucking at the same time.

[monty57]

Burnes is the better and younger pitcher. He is also the more difficult one to extend because of that, so the choice eventually might be Woody or neither.

 

I doubt that either will be extended, but I'd think that Burnes' age would make him the more likely to extend. Woodruff knows that he'll get one shot at a big deal when his arby days are through, and if he extends he may miss that chance. Burnes could feasibly extend a couple of additional years with the Brewers, limiting his risk that he may get hurt over the next few years and miss out on a big money deal, and still have time to sign a bid, multi-year free agent deal.

 

I say that I doubt that either will be extended because I think that the Brewers probably offered an extension to Burnes and Woodruff around the time they extended Peralta. I just can't imagine that they extended Peralta without putting the offer out to all of them. Since they declined the extension when they were at the early stages of pre-arby, I doubt that they'd extend now that they're on the verge of making really big, "set for life" kind of money. Most of the risk is gone for them, so they might as well try to make as much as they can.

[Lathund]

Interesting, because I see it the other way around. That becasue of Burnes' age he has the chance to get a long big-money deal, because teams won't be as concerned about the back end of it. And thus he'd need quite a lucrative extension offer to give up that. Whereas Woody would be turning 32 a couple months after hitting free agency (Under the current rules anyway), there might not be a huge deal waiting for him, especially not if there are injuries to worry about in the next few years. So adding a year, or perhaps a team option year or two with a fairly large buyout for security could be attractive.

 

But really, I think both perspectives are viable, it's just a matter of how they each look at risk. Do they want to maximize potential upside or minimize potetntial downside, or something inbetween? Personally I agree that it's unlikely that either will sign an extension. The way this front office has spent money (Or not spent it, more like) on pitching so far I think they'll end up trying to do like the Chris Archer trade (In terms of getting both MLB-ready talent and good prospects) for both of them once they get close to free agency. And trust in their pitching development to continue producing.

[monty57]

Interesting, because I see it the other way around. That becasue of Burnes' age he has the chance to get a long big-money deal, because teams won't be as concerned about the back end of it. And thus he'd need quite a lucrative extension offer to give up that. Whereas Woody would be turning 32 a couple months after hitting free agency (Under the current rules anyway), there might not be a huge deal waiting for him, especially not if there are injuries to worry about in the next few years. So adding a year, or perhaps a team option year or two with a fairly large buyout for security could be attractive.

 

But really, I think both perspectives are viable, it's just a matter of how they each look at risk. Do they want to maximize potential upside or minimize potetntial downside, or something inbetween? Personally I agree that it's unlikely that either will sign an extension. The way this front office has spent money (Or not spent it, more like) on pitching so far I think they'll end up trying to do like the Chris Archer trade (In terms of getting both MLB-ready talent and good prospects) for both of them once they get close to free agency. And trust in their pitching development to continue producing.

 

Good points.

 

I can't imagine the stress GM's (or "Presidents of Baseball Operations") are under. Even when you've set up a team with a legitimate World Series shot and most of your core under control for multiple seasons, there are still a lot of big decisions to be made.

[KeithStone53151]

The most likely realistic answer here is neither. Both appear headed for north of 25M per and probably north of 150M overall. Most likely we ride out the team control and watch them pitch for the Yankees or Red Sox in 3-4 years.

[Roderick]

The most likely realistic answer here is neither. Both appear headed for north of 25M per and probably north of 150M overall. Most likely we ride out the team control and watch them pitch for the Yankees or Red Sox in 3-4 years.

 

I would think they try to keep one guy past free agency, for big bucks, but to be determined by hometown discount, how other pitchers are looking, plus how many cheap/pre-arby position guys are good enough that we don't have to spend FA money after 2024 for most of these positions: Garcia, Cain, JBJ, Wong, Narvaez, Adames. You would like to think that between who we have in the minors that could be up by 2025 and who we would receive in trades for Burnes/Woodruff that we can limit our free agent spending.

 

Everything being the same I would want to keep Burnes over Woody.

[MrTPlush]

People were getting into a conversation about Woodruff extensions in the Houser/Lauer thread, but seems like a more appropriate place to put my thoughts for fun.

 

Woodruff is a bit older and his FA contract would start at 32...so he is in a bit of an awkward position. If he keeps it up till FA he is probably looking at minimum 6/$180mil. Add in the arby years and he is at like $225mil or so? Maybe a realistic ceiling of $250mil over the course of that time if he gets $35mil a year. Zack Greinke would be the best comp because he signed his contract with the D Backs to start at age 32. Guessing you would have to offer at least 9/$180mil for him to consider forgoing FA forever. Not saying they should do it (they shouldn't) or I would (I wouldn't). Though watching guys like Scherzer dominate deep into their 30s makes it tempting.

 

Corbin Burnes is just never going to happen. He is well on his way to a $300mil contract if he keeps it up. There is no way he takes the discount needed to even be able to consider if we can afford him.

 

A big problem with extending one is we would almost certainly do exactly what we did with Yelich and lose out on a year(s) of cheaper control. Burnes/Woodruff are still very cheap the next three years, all things considered. Extend one and suddenly that is a huge salary on the books, instead of a bargain. You could just keep the next few years cheap, but then you have massive salaries on the back end. The Brewers need to take advantage of those arbitration salaries to fill out the rest of the roster. Not make those years expensive and add a bunch of mid 30s disaster salaries in the future.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I'm pretty sure we were having this exact same discussion around August 2017 regarding Jimmy Nelson....the Brewers need to tread very lightly with paying huge money, longterm extensions to pitchers well before they actually become free agents. Their focus should be to continue with the assembly line of pitching coming up through the minors quickly (Small, Ashby, etc) and have replacements for when guys like Burnes/Woodruff move on in free agency.

 

I'd prefer they try to take the route the Brewers did with Fielder for both Woodruff and Burnes - try to lock in a contract extension that actually doesn't buy out any free agent years but locks in their salaries during arbitration years to give them some payroll certainty. I'd be perfectly fine with the Brewers finding ways to pay these guys what they would likely command in arbitration and then look at either trading them their free agent year in the offseason for a haul (assuming there is pitching depth in the organization to replace them) or at the deadline if the Brewers are out of contention - or just ride them to free agency, get the draft pick, and move forward without having to pay them $30M+ way into their 30s.

[monty57]

People were getting into a conversation about Woodruff extensions in the Houser/Lauer thread, but seems like a more appropriate place to put my thoughts for fun.

 

Woodruff is a bit older and his FA contract would start at 32...so he is in a bit of an awkward position. If he keeps it up till FA he is probably looking at minimum 6/$180mil. Add in the arby years and he is at like $225mil or so? Maybe a realistic ceiling of $250mil over the course of that time if he gets $35mil a year. Zack Greinke would be the best comp because he signed his contract with the D Backs to start at age 32. Guessing you would have to offer at least 9/$180mil for him to consider forgoing FA forever. Not saying they should do it (they shouldn't) or I would (I wouldn't). Though watching guys like Scherzer dominate deep into their 30s makes it tempting.

 

Corbin Burnes is just never going to happen. He is well on his way to a $300mil contract if he keeps it up. There is no way he takes the discount needed to even be able to consider if we can afford him.

 

A big problem with extending one is we would almost certainly do exactly what we did with Yelich and lose out on a year(s) of cheaper control. Burnes/Woodruff are still very cheap the next three years, all things considered. Extend one and suddenly that is a huge salary on the books, instead of a bargain. You could just keep the next few years cheap, but then you have massive salaries on the back end. The Brewers need to take advantage of those arbitration salaries to fill out the rest of the roster. Not make those years expensive and add a bunch of mid 30s disaster salaries in the future.

 

I agree. The most realistic scenario I can think of would be to try to eke out one additional season of Burnes by guaranteeing the salary through his arby years. He still has some injury risk before he hits the big payday, and he's young enough that he could still get a monster deal if he gives up one year of free agency for a guaranteed deal now.

 

I don't expect it to happen, but it's at least feasible.

[tmwiese55]

These are going to be interesting scenarios to play out. I'd still guess Wood is the more likely to lock in something reasonable and buy out a year or two of FA just for the stability and eliminating injury risk and becoming the next Nelson.

 

But mostly I was just adding I wonder what the agents behind the scenes or insiders best guess on the CBA factors in. The public vibe seems to a change to the arb/team control years, so if they think that's likely it would reduce their likelihood to lock into anything if their guys might hit FA a year sooner. Though who knows how current players will be grandfathered etc, I guess I'm just saying if the agents think the new CBA will be friendlier to this exact scenario they're unlikely to do anything before that's sorted out.

[MrTPlush]

These are going to be interesting scenarios to play out. I'd still guess Wood is the more likely to lock in something reasonable and buy out a year or two of FA just for the stability and eliminating injury risk and becoming the next Nelson.

 

Except that would be giving up the few years of FA that will fuel his massive payday. Not to mention he would then have to perform even farther into his 30s to get that payday. At that point he might as well just take a massive contract extension from the Brewers and call it a day.

 

Burnes would be in a better position to give up some FA time as he would still be fairly young when hitting the open market. He also hasn't had an arbitration salary yet. I find this notable because if one of them blew out their elbow next April they would have their 2022 and 2023 salary guaranteed. The Brewers would obviously roll the dice on either coming back from surgery strong. Using that logic Woodruff has got to have at least $20mil in future money assured while Burnes may not even have half that assured. Heck you could argue the Brewers or another team would still roll the dice another year regardless of performance. Though the way Burnes talks about himself (incredibly confident) I don't see him that scared of the risk.

 

That is the problem though. They have been so good and are fairly close to FA their arbitration years might as well be guaranteed, at minimum, their 2022 salary.

[tmwiese55]

Others have put the whole argument in full in here explaining all the scenarios for both. I get that for Wood, but it also put him at the most risk of getting nothing due to his age, if he were to get hurt or underperform. Burnes is young enough to rebound, Wood is not. If hits FA after TJ surgery at age 32ish he's playing on one year deals from then on out. And I don't mean he'd take a Peralta type deal, It would be legit money that say gets him to 34ish and he never has to worry about money. Combine that with the fact that even best case he hits FA at 32 that age limits how 'mega' his deal would be, as opposed to Burnes who would not have that limitation (essentially Burnes' lotto ticket is higher). Also, what I mean would be a payday, not at the 150+ mil area he could get, but it's the first big money he'll have made and it eliminates the risk of the Nelson situation while setting him for life. Others have made posts laying it out for both and I get them all and we really have no idea. Some of it comes down to each person's preference. But I'm just saying I'd guess this way on it, who knows.

[KCBrewerfan34]

Burnes all day every day. Because of age and ability.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

I would ride the same approach as Hader. File and trial. As long as they are effective pitchers it’ll only be a 1 year commitment, without long term risks.

 

This is why having Peralta locked in so cheap for awhile (assuming he stays effective) is so important. Then throw in Ashby and potentially Small as league minimum guys. Houser and Lauer will be cheapish as well to add to it.

[Bulldogboy]

Burnes and it isn't close.

[NievesNoNO]

Burnes. Ask again in two years; hopefully they have their WS title by then

[CheezWizHed]

Burnes. Ask again next year; hopefully they have their WS title by then

 

Fixed for you.

[clancyphile]

I think Woodruff may be the more extendable, given his age and when he was drafted, but the Crew might be able to pull off extending both.

 

Two words: Bobby Bonilla.

 

Offer Woodruff and Burnes eight-year, $200 million deals - with $80 million deferred, payable over 20 years at $4 million a year.

 

They not only get "set for life" money, they have plenty of income down the road post-baseball. Even if it's only Woodruff... a bargain, even on the 20 "out" years.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think Woodruff may be the more extendable, given his age and when he was drafted, but the Crew might be able to pull off extending both.

 

Two words: Bobby Bonilla.

 

Offer Woodruff and Burnes eight-year, $200 million deals - with $80 million deferred, payable over 20 years at $4 million a year.

 

They not only get "set for life" money, they have plenty of income down the road post-baseball. Even if it's only Woodruff... a bargain, even on the 20 "out" years.

 

Are you honestly advocating for contracts that mirror one that is so widely panned and criticized/mocked that there's an actual "day" to celebrate its absurdity?

 

I know you like to go trolling, but come on now!

[clancyphile]

I think Woodruff may be the more extendable, given his age and when he was drafted, but the Crew might be able to pull off extending both.

 

Two words: Bobby Bonilla.

 

Offer Woodruff and Burnes eight-year, $200 million deals - with $80 million deferred, payable over 20 years at $4 million a year.

 

They not only get "set for life" money, they have plenty of income down the road post-baseball. Even if it's only Woodruff... a bargain, even on the 20 "out" years.

 

Are you honestly advocating for contracts that mirror one that is so widely panned and criticized/mocked that there's an actual "day" to celebrate its absurdity?

 

I know you like to go trolling, but come on now!

 

Bobby Bonilla was 34 when the contract in question was signed by the Marlins prior to 1997. In 1998 he was dealt mid-season to the Dodgers, and then traded to the Mets prior to 1999, and released prior to 2000 (when the "Bobby Bonilla Day" deal was reached). He was on the downside of his career.

 

Burnes is 26, Woodruff is 28. Both are in their prime, and likely to be there for a number of years (until about their age 34-35 seasons). In this case, deferring money down the road might keep them in OUR rotation during their prime as opposed to say, the Dodgers. Or would you like `em in Cardinals red? How about pitching their home games at Wrigley Field?

 

Maybe work it out so the payment is over 30 years instead of 20 ($2 million for the first 20 years, $4 million for the last 10). But the concept could keep the aces in Milwaukee for their careers (or the best parts of them). This approach could also be very useful for Adames...