Rebuild, retool, trade - how should the Brewers approach the next 1.5 seasons?

[monty57]

1 hour ago, clancyphile said:

2. Trade them for less than their value, both immediate and long-term.

Option 2 is a lot of risk. Ask the Marlins how that trade for Yelich worked out for them. For Hader, Option 2 may be necessary, depending on how the revenue and payroll situations line up.

Why do you have to trade them for less than their value?

Any trade involves risks by both parties, but the Brewers aren't going to willfully accept less value than they are giving up. The team giving up the "proven" guy usually gives up 1-2 years of service time in return for a number of guys with 6 years of service time. It's pretty common for the team receiving the "prospect package" to get a lot more WAR out of the players received than they would have received from 1-2 years of the star player that was traded.

In the Sabathia trade, he had a phenomenal year, amassing 7.4 WAR, so let's say we got 4 WAR for a partial season. We gave up Brantley who gave the Indians a total of 20.20 WAR over his years in Cleveland. Even though most of the guys in the trade didn't pan out, the one who did made it a great trade for Cleveland.

In the Grienke trade, we got around 5 WAR in 1.5 seasons, but gave up Cain (20.80 WAR for KC), Escobar (11.40 WAR for KC) and Odorizzi who gave the Rays 6.8 WAR after being traded there from KC. 

We traded Gomez, who had 2.2 WAR in 2015 when he was traded (0.2 WAR in 2016) for Hader (10 WAR so far), Houser (4.4 WAR), Santana (4.4 WAR for the Brewers) and Phillips who brought us Moustakas in trade.

As I said earlier, there is always risk, but the return we could get from any of Burnes, Woodruff or Adames could be the core of the next great Brewer team. The return we'd get from trading all of them plus guys like Hader, Houser, Lauer and others over the next few years should keep us in playoff contention for years to come.

I like seeing players extended, but Burnes and Woodruff have priced themselves out of the Brewers' market. They deserve, and will likely get huge contracts, and the Brewers will not be the ones who sign them.

[Thurston Fluff]

3 hours ago, clancyphile said:

The way I see it, the Brewers have three choices with Hader and Burnes:

1. Extend them.

2. Trade them for less than their value, both immediate and long-term.

3. Let them walk for nothing.

Number 3 has to be ruled out - given the Brewers position, they cannot afford to lose generational talent without compensation. We don't get picks any more for players who depart via free agency, and quite frankly, that draft pick compensation should be restored, but that ain't happening by the time they hit free agency.

Option 2 is a lot of risk. Ask the Marlins how that trade for Yelich worked out for them. For Hader, Option 2 may be necessary, depending on how the revenue and payroll situations line up.

But for Burnes, the best option is to cough up the extension. Peralta, with options, is around through 2026. Ethan Small and Aaron Ashby will likely be in the rotation by then, and the fifth slot... well, the Crew has been developing pitchers well. 

Of all the options I think the second has the least risk. Less injury risk for younger players, more money to spread around fill holes and a better farm allows for bigger trades. The Yelich deal would not have happened if we didn't have a loaded farm system necessary to acquire him. While there is risk of a Marlins type of trade happening I don't think that is anywhere near as risky as signing Hader and/or Burnes to a major deal then seeing injuries derail their careers or just turning into today's version of Yelich.

[clancyphile]

20 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

Of all the options I think the second has the least risk. Less injury risk for younger players, more money to spread around fill holes and a better farm allows for bigger trades. The Yelich deal would not have happened if we didn't have a loaded farm system necessary to acquire him. While there is risk of a Marlins type of trade happening I don't think that is anywhere near as risky as signing Hader and/or Burnes to a major deal then seeing injuries derail their careers or just turning into today's version of Yelich.

I agree a loaded farm system matters. That's why I'm all for dealing just about anyone.

That said... Burnes is probably at the point where the extension that makes him the building block of the rotation is probably the best moves, and the Crew should use deferred compensation on the level of Bobby Bonilla.

Sign Burnes for 10 years, $350 million, with $150 million deferred and paid out at $5 million a year for 30 years.

[timpep]

1 hour ago, clancyphile said:

 

Sign Burnes for 10 years, $350 million, with $150 million deferred and paid out at $5 million a year for 30 years.

I think he's worth it but that would mean it leaves the Brewers only about $50-60 million to field basically an entire team. Yelich + $35 mil to Burnes would already be 61 mil a year with 24 more players to pay for.  

[Thurston Fluff]

2 hours ago, clancyphile said:

I agree a loaded farm system matters. That's why I'm all for dealing just about anyone.

That said... Burnes is probably at the point where the extension that makes him the building block of the rotation is probably the best moves, and the Crew should use deferred compensation on the level of Bobby Bonilla.

Sign Burnes for 10 years, $350 million, with $150 million deferred and paid out at $5 million a year for 30 years.

 

Haven't we learned the dangers of signing long term contracts yet? I certainly am not in favor of deferred compensation anywhere near to Bobby Bonilla level. That would effectively eliminate any chance of sustained productivity in ten years if not sooner. A LOT sooner if Burnes doesn't produce at a Cy Young level for 8-10 years.  It would also coincide with the possibility of needing to revamp or replace the our stadium. Imagine how hard it would be to convince people to pony up for a new stadium even though there is no credible way to field a winning team for the foreseeable future.

[clancyphile]

29 minutes ago, Thurston Fluff said:

 

Haven't we learned the dangers of signing long term contracts yet? I certainly am not in favor of deferred compensation anywhere near to Bobby Bonilla level. That would effectively eliminate any chance of sustained productivity in ten years if not sooner. A LOT sooner if Burnes doesn't produce at a Cy Young level for 8-10 years.  It would also coincide with the possibility of needing to revamp or replace the our stadium. Imagine how hard it would be to convince people to pony up for a new stadium even though there is no credible way to field a winning team for the foreseeable future.

At the rate of inflation, including for salaries. is $5 million a year really going to kill payroll?

Burnes isn't a free agent until after 2025, his year 30 season.

Maybe don't think 10 years, How about eight years, $240 million, with $80 million deferred, taking him through 2030 alongside Yelich, paying out the Bonilla-esque $80 million over 20 years - do you really think that $4 million will make or break payrolls from 2031 to 2051?

Burnes at $20 million, Yelich at $26 million is $46 million a year, not $61 million. That means it's about $65-$80 million a year to fill out the other 24 roster spots.

[clancyphile]

1 hour ago, timpep said:

I think he's worth it but that would mean it leaves the Brewers only about $50-60 million to field basically an entire team. Yelich + $35 mil to Burnes would already be 61 mil a year with 24 more players to pay for.  

First, the math is off. If you give Burnes a Bonilla-esque deferment, the Brewers only pay $20 million a year, NOT $35 million. So that means it's $46 mil, not 61. $15 million is a fair chunk of change.

That means we're talking $65-$80 million, assuming the estimated 2023 payroll at Baseball Reference of $123.9 million (counting options). $123.9 million minus the $46 million for Yelich/Burnes is $77.9 million for the other 24 players on the roster. 

[Robocaller]

35 minutes ago, clancyphile said:

First, the math is off. If you give Burnes a Bonilla-esque deferment, the Brewers only pay $20 million a year, NOT $35 million. So that means it's $46 mil, not 61. $15 million is a fair chunk of change.

That means we're talking $65-$80 million, assuming the estimated 2023 payroll at Baseball Reference of $123.9 million (counting options). $123.9 million minus the $46 million for Yelich/Burnes is $77.9 million for the other 24 players on the roster. 

When's the last player who had 43% of his contract deferred a long time?

 

[Thurston Fluff]

1 hour ago, clancyphile said:

At the rate of inflation, including for salaries. is $5 million a year really going to kill payroll?

Burnes isn't a free agent until after 2025, his year 30 season.

Maybe don't think 10 years, How about eight years, $240 million, with $80 million deferred, taking him through 2030 alongside Yelich, paying out the Bonilla-esque $80 million over 20 years - do you really think that $4 million will make or break payrolls from 2031 to 2051?

Burnes at $20 million, Yelich at $26 million is $46 million a year, not $61 million. That means it's about $65-$80 million a year to fill out the other 24 roster spots.

 

37 year old Max Scherzer got over $43 million per year for three years. To get to a manageable $20 million is going to require deferring over half his contract. I doubt he'd go for a three year contract when he can easily get eight so now we're talking about deferring about $184 million. Why would someone in his position put off receiving $184 million for decades? I doubt anyone would do that without interest. Even assuming he does Yelich is being paid $2,333,333 between 2031 and 2042. Suddenly you're looking at a lot of dead money in the mid 30's for guys who aren't even on the team anymore.

[rickh150]

Extending Burnes is not an option any more, imo, unless Burnes is willing to take huge pay cut at 4 or 5 years…, 5 years for 125 mil, sure. But he should be at 8 years for 300 mil, right? 

Hader is traded or if really poor offers come in, he stays and plays out his contract. No chance of giving a reliever 20 mil a year over 4 or 5 years in our market. 

 

[brewers888]

If this team holds onto Hader, Burnes, and Woodruff and lets them walk in free agency we will be a 90 plus loss team. The team has to start moving these guys over the next year or so while they still have big value. If Hader pitches well before the deadline and a good offer is out there take it and think of moving Burnes and Woodruff in the offseason. 

The thought of trading Burnes is depressing but with no salary cap we can't compete with the big money teams. The state of the game is a complete mess unless you are a fan of a big market team as teams like the Brewers are screwed by not having a salary cap in place. 

[rickh150]

7 minutes ago, brewers888 said:

If this team holds onto Hader, Burnes, and Woodruff and lets them walk in free agency we will be a 90 plus loss team. The team has to start moving these guys over the next year or so while they still have big value. If Hader pitches well before the deadline and a good offer is out there take it and think of moving Burnes and Woodruff in the offseason. 

The thought of trading Burnes is depressing but with no salary cap we can't compete with the big money teams. The state of the game is a complete mess unless you are a fan of a big market team as teams like the Brewers are screwed by not having a salary cap in place. 

The Brewers have made four consecutive playoffs. They are leading their division. Small markets can still compete, and Stearns/Counsell/Attanasio get an A+ for doing that.  It is really amazing to see the Brewers doing so well, year in and year out. And they are doing it with less, MUCH less than the avg. team that gets to the playoffs. Besides the Rays, the Brewers are the best small market in baseball. It’s almost unbelievable to me, considering our team’s history.
Now, are we going to have to get used to trading players in year five and six? Yes. Think back to Carlos Lee, Francisco Cordero, Prince, Greinke… it happened for us before and it will happen again. I am ok with it as long as we can have 120-150 mil payroll in the next 10 years’ game. That pretty much means we can have a few stars and keepers or good FAs, but we have to rely on smart trades and constant avg to above avg cheap, young players to compete for the playoffs. 
I actually think it will be healthy for the organization to get a few top ranked prospects for a Hader or Woodruff this offseason., even though the loss will leave a mark. It will sting, sure, but hitting on a good bat/arm or two is needed so the cheap talent pump line can keep coming through.

[brewers888]

18 minutes ago, rickh150 said:

The Brewers have made four consecutive playoffs. They are leading their division. Small markets can still compete, and Stearns/Counsell/Attanasio get an A+ for doing that.  It is really amazing to see the Brewers doing so well, year in and year out. And they are doing it with less, MUCH less than the avg. team that gets to the playoffs. Besides the Rays, the Brewers are the best small market in baseball. It’s almost unbelievable to me, considering our team’s history.
Now, are we going to have to get used to trading players in year five and six? Yes. Think back to Carlos Lee, Francisco Cordero, Prince, Greinke… it happened for us before and it will happen again. I am ok with it as long as we can have 120-150 mil payroll in the next 10 years’ game. That pretty much means we can have a few stars and keepers or good FAs, but we have to rely on smart trades and constant avg to above avg cheap, young players to compete for the playoffs. 
I actually think it will be healthy for the organization to get a few top ranked prospects for a Hader or Woodruff this offseason., even though the loss will leave a mark. It will sting, sure, but hitting on a good bat/arm or two is needed so the cheap talent pump line can keep coming through.

Yes we can compete somewhat especially with MLB expanding the playoffs constantly but the fact is KC is the only small payroll team that has won a World Series this century. 

[Ulice Payne]

I'd like to see the Brewers continually recycle the talent by embarking on a series of winter trades over the next few seasons.  If they were to choose two players to sign to long term contracts; say Burnes and Hader, they'd be choosing to run their team like the Angels.  The Angels can argue that they have the two best players in baseball, yet they can't put a complete team around them.

Setting the Yelich deal aside for the moment; if Milwaukee signs their own free agents, they'll paint themselves into the same corner with the Angels.  Even if they choose the right players to sign & those players perform well, there's just not enough resources left to finish out the roster.  The reason they have the pitching they have now is due to smart trading and fortuitous drafting.  Free agency, even with their own players, will not be a good strategy so long as the economic situation remains.

Part of the appeal of following the Brewers is the fantasy baseball element.  Every winter, fans get to play along with Stearns, trying to determine how to create a winner.  It's like playing Monopoly with your little brother & spotting him Boardwalk & Park Place, then still having to figure out how to beat him.

It's ok if Burnes, Hader, Woodruff, et al, move on.  Thery'll be new players to replace them, and the games will be entertaining.  The team will either be winning or playing the youngsters-- both of which make for compelling baseball.  What is not compelling is paying everyone what they're worth, then playing a team comprised of big salary veterans and economical journeymen on their way to a 76 win season; and that's what we'd most likely get with an Angels-style team.

 

[NBBrewFan]

1 hour ago, brewers888 said:

If this team holds onto Hader, Burnes, and Woodruff and lets them walk in free agency we will be a 90 plus loss team. The team has to start moving these guys over the next year or so while they still have big value. If Hader pitches well before the deadline and a good offer is out there take it and think of moving Burnes and Woodruff in the offseason. 

The latest on the MLB.com website says the Nationals are thinking of trading Soto because he turned down their latest extension offer that would be the largest ever in MLB.  He isn't a FA until 2024. It's beyond me how stupid the Nationals are to throw record money at a guy who has 21.3 fWAR through roughly 2400 PA while Mike Trout had over 38 fWAR in just over 2800 PA to start his career.  Sure Soto is a very good player, but he really isn't in the top Tier of talent to be breaking the bank,  Having said that, the Nationals are smart to not want that Asset to evaporate even if it means pissing off some of their fans, although most of them are still enjoying being a WS champion something as Brewer fans we can only dream about.

[Ulice Payne]

1 minute ago, NBBrewFan said:

 although most of them are still enjoying being a WS champion something as Brewer fans we can only dream about.

I could see this argument.  Going with a Marlins type strategy of focusing all the talent into one season; borrowing from the future.  If the team really believed that signing all these guys would lead to a WS win, even if they would be looking at 5-10 years of mediocre baseball thereafter, they'd have to consider it.

When the Brewers traded for Sabathia, I didn't care what it cost.  The team HAD to get back to the playoffs.  The 28 year wait was just way too long.

In my opinion, constant talent turnover is a better long term strategy than going for broke in one year.  Sure, it worked for the Marlins, but how many other times has it not?  It's a hard question to answer, as the times that strategy failed produced forgettable teams.

[NBBrewFan]

2 minutes ago, Ulice Payne said:

In my opinion, constant talent turnover is a better long term strategy than going for broke in one year.  Sure, it worked for the Marlins, but how many other times has it not?  It's a hard question to answer, as the times that strategy failed produced forgettable teams.

I agree, the problem is that you have to be successful in draft and development at a level the Stearns-led Brewers have not.  Wasn't it 3 years ago that Stearns basically cleared out the scouting group?  I get that running the MLB team is a large enough challenge, but he waited way too long to hold some people accountable.  We'll see if the latest round of scouts and player evaluators will make a difference, the downside is we're likely 3 years away from those choices to make a talent turnover strategy work and if we let Burnes, Hader and Woodruff walk instead of trading those assets we don't know if the next round will even be enough talent to keep the team competitive.

[Ulice Payne]

6 minutes ago, NBBrewFan said:

,we don't know if the next round will even be enough talent to keep the team competitive.

Agreed.  But the Brewers have a chance to draft and trade well.  They don't really have a chance to build a team through free agent contracts.

Better for them to play the game they can win, and let the chips fall as they may.

Certainly we don't know if it's enough.  That's why we watch the games.