Corbin Burnes Contract Talks (or lack thereof)

[KeithStone53151]

6 hours ago, UpandIn said:

You didn't have to give him "half his value," his value with 3 years left of team control was considerably less than the 35M number that's being thrown around here. 

Burnes is going to command close to 10/400M in free agency. The Brewers probably aren't comfortable offering much more than something like 7/200M. So maybe not half but pretty close, and 7/200 is a pretty insulting offer considering what he'll probably get. The Yankees and Dodgers can still field a good team in years 8-10 of that deal if Burnes is bad. Imagine the Brewers trying to field a competitive team with a $40M/year bad contract on the books for 3 years. We'd turn into the Pirates real quick during those years.

[adambr2]

This still bears repeating ...free agency value is not the same as pre-free agency value. Burnes is not currently a free agent, so 10/400 is not an accurate depiction of his current value. 

Free agents have maximum leverage. The further you are out from free agency, the more risk that the team takes on. It's why so many people thought we got such a smoking deal on Yelich, when the reality is that Yelich signed a deal with us that was plenty fair and consistent with him being 3 years away from free agency. He was never going to get 10/350 or whatever despite coming off two MVP caliber seasons. 

3 years out, a team runs an inherent risk of being on the long-term hook for a player who ends up injured or who simply falls off a cliff performance wise, as we found out with Yelich.

[GAME05]

Eh, non-story. It's not like Burns is sitting around thinking "I'd take a 10/$100 deal if only the Brewers phoned, nor are the Brewers waiting to offer 5/$200 if only Burnes would send an email. Everyone involved knows exactly what's up apart from the fans. Even early extensions aren't exactly uncharted territory.

[MrTPlush]

You know, Corbin Burnes is an adult. He could just as easily pick up the phone and call the Brewers. If he really wanted to stay that bad he would ask his agent to approach them. This has happened many times before. Pretty sure that is how both Braun extensions started. 

 

[Jopal78]

52 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

This still bears repeating ...free agency value is not the same as pre-free agency value. Burnes is not currently a free agent, so 10/400 is not an accurate depiction of his current value. 

Free agents have maximum leverage. The further you are out from free agency, the more risk that the team takes on. It's why so many people thought we got such a smoking deal on Yelich, when the reality is that Yelich signed a deal with us that was plenty fair and consistent with him being 3 years away from free agency. He was never going to get 10/350 or whatever despite coming off two MVP caliber seasons. 

3 years out, a team runs an inherent risk of being on the long-term hook for a player who ends up injured or who simply falls off a cliff performance wise, as we found out with Yelich.

Sure, it also bears repeating however, other than protecting his future against catastrophic injury, Corbin Burnes never had any real incentive to sell off his arbitration years up front. Having remained supremely effective and healthy, Burnes will indisputably make more money going year to year (a fact which even if he was unaware, his agency certainly knows).  Even in the unlikely event of a future sharp decline in performance, that occurrence is not disastrous to the player  because the arbitration rules curtail the amount of a pay cut a team can even seek.

 

 

[monty57]

I don't think there is any chance the Brewers were signing Burnes, so I'm not concerned on that side of things. What is concerning is that the players and management don't seem to be on the same page. 

In past years, the team seemed to be having fun and they "found ways to win." This year, they seem to be pretty lethargic and they're "finding ways to lose." With the Hader situation and now this, things really seem to point to the "us versus them" potentially being the reason the team doesn't seem to have the same drive they've had in past years.

This is pure speculation, but I could see Stearns being a very analytical, "players are commodities" type of guy, and that's now really starting to become apparent to the players, since the team is in a position where many of them are going to get flipped for younger, cheaper guys over the next few years (which already happened to Hader). 

Professionals should be professionals, and it shouldn't matter, but something has these guys flat this season. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

Burnes is going to command close to 10/400M in free agency.

That's not bad considering he's about 4 seasons removed from being arguably the worst starting pitcher in the majors back in 2019.  Kudos for getting himself turned around into a dominant starter.

If Burnes waits until free agency to cash in, he might get a contract approaching $40M AAV, but there's no way it will be the length of 10 years.  He'll be about 30 as a free agent.  Gerrit Cole holds the alltime record for a pitching free agency contract, which is 9 yrs at $36M AAV, signed as a 29 year old.  Scherzer got $43M and change in AAV, but only a 3 year deal as a 37yr old.

Looking through this list - good god there's been a lot of $$ thrown at pitchers who just aren't very good even 1-2 years into the longterm contracts, many of those big FA contracts signed by pitchers in that 29-31 yr old range....hard, hard pass on wanting to pay any pitcher a mint for a super longterm deal.  I'd rather do what the Mets did and pony up a huge AAV for a couple years of an ace than what the Yankees did with Cole.

[rickh150]

There is no winning this....

Sign him and we are limiting what we can do in every other phase of the game EVEN if he is healthy and does well.  With him hurt and Yelich not Yelich, almost half of our payroll would be almost wasted in TWO guys.  

Don't try to sign him and we look cheap.

Trade him and we likely do not get enough back in return... maybe.  

Keep him two more years and have him walk for nothing.

My guess is that the team simply weighs the return over the offseason, taking a gander at what they could get.  If it isn't "enough" we simply pay arby and go with Burnes in 2023.  I kind of like this option too.  If we are not getting a major haul back with top prospects and a #3/4 type MLB pitcher, let's go with him again. 

If Burnes is not dealt, I assume Woodruff is gone, though.  I can't see us back with both of these guys next year because of payroll concerns amid low(er) attendance numbers.  Nobody will say this from management, but we are hurting financially.  Not a money making time for Brewers baseball from 2020-2022.  It's why Hader was dealt and it will be why one of the big two is gone, as well.   Then there is "THE REPORT" looming over the franchise.  How many 100s of millions of dollars will it take to keep our ballpark and ballteam current and in Milwaukee.  Uncertainty for sure and not much direction.... Still huge if Brewers can get in playoffs and make a run to put some fire and energy back into the fanbase and ownership.

[Robocaller]

I have a hard time thinking Burnes would get significantly more than Strassburg's 7yr-$245M, particularly since there's a real possibility 2021 was his peak. There's a lot of risk and reward in that kind of deal. 
I'd definitely bring back Burnes and Woodruff in 2023 and hope the stars align and we can get to the WS. But if the season goes to hell, I'd trade them before the deadline, to whomever gave a suitable return.

 

[Playing Catch]

On 9/14/2022 at 9:48 AM, Fear The Chorizo said:

I read the article that was the genesis for this thread, and thinking this is much ado about nothing and trying to read way too hard between the lines.  Is an organization supposed to constantly be asking its players and representation who are years away from free agency whether they want to discuss contract extensions?  I didn't see anything from Burnes or CAA indicating they've reached out to the Brewers directly to tell them "hey, let's talk about parameters for a contract extension if you're interested".  Why not?  Why hasn't CAA been calling Stearns every other week to try and get a discussion going for that?

To me the article should have been framed like "1 year ago Burnes was part of a Brewers team no-hitter, the first since the Nieves No-No, and since then the outlook of the organization at the MLB level for this current core of players has changed for the worse due to a disappointing playoff exit last fall an uneven 2022 season".  Turning its focus to why the Brewers didn't find time to try and negotiate a longterm contract extension for their Cy Young winner during an offseason that included a lengthy lockout (remember the Brewers still had JBJ's salary on their books for 2022 until the day before the lockout began) is just looking for controversy where there really isn't any.  Let's see what happens this offseason - it's likely the Brewers are going to have to choose one of their starters approaching free agency in a few seasons that are about to get expensive (Woody/Burnes) to try and extend (if they want to), and either send the other elsewhere via trade or take year to year until they leave as a free agent for more $.  We all know that, and I think the discussion should be if the Brewers even should try to retain one of them beyond the ages they currently have them under organizational control.

I agree with Chorizo.

As far as we know, the Brewers were planning on approaching Burnes after his next start, or perhaps in the off-season. As far as we know the Brewers and Burnes's representation have had enough cursory conversations about Burnes's long-term career goals that a "formal approach" would simply initiate a national media feeding frenzy surrounding the future of the Brewers star pitcher that doesn't help the process at all, whether they try to sign him or trade him.

It seems like Burnes was just being candid with McCalvy, even if he knew it was on the record. I didn't interpret it as animosity or confusion, or not being "on the same page" with the organization. He was just having a conversation with a co-worker about his unkown future.

[UpandIn]

9 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

Burnes is going to command close to 10/400M in free agency. The Brewers probably aren't comfortable offering much more than something like 7/200M. So maybe not half but pretty close, and 7/200 is a pretty insulting offer considering what he'll probably get. The Yankees and Dodgers can still field a good team in years 8-10 of that deal if Burnes is bad. Imagine the Brewers trying to field a competitive team with a $40M/year bad contract on the books for 3 years. We'd turn into the Pirates real quick during those years.

-Don't think he'll get anything close to that. Pitchers are getting shorter contracts with higher AAV.

-He's part of an exceptionally deep FA class...

-He WASN'T a FA. I feel like this is a pretty big point otherwise you could point to virtually ANY player who signs  during their first 6 years and say they were insulted by the offer they accpeted.

-How much was Walker Buehler, a young pitcher who's body of work was at least as good as Burnes, what would he have commanded? He's about 3 months older than Burnes. Was he also getting 400M over 10 years?

 

-But here are the two MAIN points that I CONTINUE to make.

A-He is NOT a Free Agent. Nobody is looking at what a pitcher MIGHT get 3 years in the future and giving a pitcher THAT deal. I could make a list of 30-40 players who took a fraction of what one MIGHT imagine them getting as Free Agents despite signing early
B-You're so worried about offending him...but he seems a little miffed at the moment that the Brewers didn't even think enough of him to initiate some preliminary contract talks. 

He said he WANTED to be a Brewers. "That's the dream, to pitch your whole career in one uniform."

 

Quote

You hope you’re here for the long-term — two more years, seven more years, eight more years, 10 more years, whatever it may be — you hope to be in one jersey your entire career.

So...I guess it's a good thing you didn't offend him by offering him half a contract that's never even been given to an actual FA, but it does sound like you've offended him by...doing nothing. 

[UpandIn]

3 hours ago, rickh150 said:

There is no winning this....

Sign him and we are limiting what we can do in every other phase of the game EVEN if he is healthy and does well.  With him hurt and Yelich not Yelich, almost half of our payroll would be almost wasted in TWO guys.  

I'd say with an impressive farm system on the verge of churning out position prospects, National TV money increasing, local TV money increasing, signing one of the top pitchers in the game would be "winning." 

But maybe it wouldn't be.

I do know what "losing," looks like...and it's players openly upset with management and questioning their commitment to winning right now. THAT is...very much losing. 

[brewcrewdue80]

I think the Brewers FO is at a crossroads with whom they are going pay up next. Not only is there Burnes, but Woodruff, Adames, Lauer, Houser, and even Tellez that you have to consider what amount of money and length can we do for such and such that we can work with such and such a deal? Maybe Ashby's extension is the result of missing out on Burnes Extension because of the results in 2019 vs believing in the stuff.

I'd also go with these 2 thoughts. Whom of Woody or Burnes do you trade vs extend? Well maybe they are waiting on which one goes down to injury first-TJ. Damaged goods is less value than the arm still working. Trade healthy-Extend the TJ(since it seems to boost pitcher performance)

Or maybe There's an offer for Burnes on the table that is forthcoming which make extension talks redundant. Why begin one putting Burnes on the -they want me long term thoughts- only to trade him away a few months later?

I think the trading of Woodruff or Burnes happens this offseason and the extension talks proceed with the one they keep.  

[KeithStone53151]

14 hours ago, UpandIn said:

-Don't think he'll get anything close to that. Pitchers are getting shorter contracts with higher AAV.

-He's part of an exceptionally deep FA class...

-He WASN'T a FA. I feel like this is a pretty big point otherwise you could point to virtually ANY player who signs  during their first 6 years and say they were insulted by the offer they accpeted.

-How much was Walker Buehler, a young pitcher who's body of work was at least as good as Burnes, what would he have commanded? He's about 3 months older than Burnes. Was he also getting 400M over 10 years?

 

-But here are the two MAIN points that I CONTINUE to make.

A-He is NOT a Free Agent. Nobody is looking at what a pitcher MIGHT get 3 years in the future and giving a pitcher THAT deal. I could make a list of 30-40 players who took a fraction of what one MIGHT imagine them getting as Free Agents despite signing early
B-You're so worried about offending him...but he seems a little miffed at the moment that the Brewers didn't even think enough of him to initiate some preliminary contract talks. 

He said he WANTED to be a Brewers. "That's the dream, to pitch your whole career in one uniform."

 

So...I guess it's a good thing you didn't offend him by offering him half a contract that's never even been given to an actual FA, but it does sound like you've offended him by...doing nothing. 

I feel like you're looking at Peralta/Ashby and trying to make a comparable. The situations are entirely different. Neither guy was firing off Cy Young seasons when extended and both were sub 2 years service time. Also regarding your comment that teams are giving shorter deals with higher AAV to pitchers, I feel like you're looking at Scherzer/Verlander types with that comment, and both guys are upper 30s. Those aren't comparable at all. The best comparable I can find is the Kershaw extension in 2014. Kershaw had 2 years left on his deal but also had an opt out, so he more or less could negotiate for free agent $. In 2014 he netted 7/215.

I looked through some contracts other pitchers have gotten and was probably a bit overzealous in my estimates. I looked deeper and came up with better numbers. Burnes arm could fall off tomorrow and he'd still get $25m in arbitration the next 2 years combined. With the last 2 seasons of numbers, it's hard to imagine him not commanding a minimum of $35m per year in free agency if he gets there and he'll probably command a 6-7 year commitment. So maybe the Brewers to get in the ballpark could offer 25+4 years of free agency at a discount(25/year) with some option shenanigans and an opt out. 6/125 with a player option for $25m in year 7 with a $10m buyout, and also throw in an opt out after year 2, 3, or 4. Maybe he bites at that, though it might be hard to considering he knows he could get 25+210 over the full length of his deal at free agency and 40m more over the life of the contract the Brewers are offering. Certainly his agent will be providing that context as the agent would probably gently nudge him to max his earning.

All that said, the Brewers may not be willing to offer the contract I mentioned. That's a lot for a pitcher. It's also possible Burnes thinks he's worth 40 per in free agency considering Scherzer got 43. Certainly we could have a conversation but it's probably better during the offseason in case the Brewers do provide a mildly insulting offer.

[Jopal78]

Fans want to emulate the Tampa or Oakland model of team building, then get up in arms when stars aren’t extended. It doesn’t work that way. 
 

If you want to be the Rays you have to get used to shuffling the deck every couple of years. Does anyone really believe they’re going to pay Glasnow 25 million in 2024? Hell no, Wander Franco has so little service time he has a long term extension that doesn’t even get “expensive” until 2026. Plus, if he’s a great player they can easily swap him off too. 
 

 

[GAME05]

It's all like watching Fielder leave or knowing he's going to not because we didn't want to keep him, but because we simply can't afford to compete with the big boys.

 

[monty57]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

Fans want to emulate the Tampa or Oakland model of team building, then get up in arms when stars aren’t extended. It doesn’t work that way. 
 

If you want to be the Rays you have to get used to shuffling the deck every couple of years. Does anyone really believe they’re going to pay Glasnow 25 million in 2024? Hell no, Wander Franco has so little service time he has a long term extension that doesn’t even get “expensive” until 2026. Plus, if he’s a great player they can easily swap him off too. 
 

 

I agree, but that's why I think the Brewers need to model themselves more after the Cardinals than the Rays/A's. The Cardinals have a slightly higher payroll than the Brewers, but they're not a team that can push the luxury tax. They sometimes extend players, and sometimes they trade them away. They sometimes trade for prospects, and sometimes trade prospects away. But, they are always competitive and they always have a strong farm system feeding the MLB club.

The Rays/A's have a business model that works for a small-payroll team. The Cardinals have a business model that works for a mid-payroll team. Since Attanasio has taken over and the team has been a lot more successful on the field, the Brewers have moved from a small-payroll to a mid-payroll team. As such, they can do some things the Rays/A's cannot. 

That said, they are still constrained. Obviously, Yelich's contract takes up a lot of the payroll. The bigger thing right now is that they have a lot of players moving through their arby years and they are just starting to get some good prospects that are MLB ready, so they're in a pinch for a couple of years and we'll probably have to trade some guys. But we'll always have to trade some guys before they hit free agency. Almost every franchise has that happen to them. We just happen to be in a situation where multiple star players hit free agency in the same year.

We aren't going to re-sign Burnes because he's rightfully going to demand too much money on the open market. Only a handful of teams will be in the bidding for him when he hits free agency, and the Brewers won't be one of them. Woodruff is a possibility, but he'll be in his early 30's when he hits free agency, so it might just not make sense for the Brewers to pay up for his "decline years." If we got 1-2 extra years of Woodruff, that'd be great, but I don't know why he'd do that, as he knows he's probably got one shot to get a big contract in free agency, so the Brewers would probably have to sign a long-term deal to get Woodruff to bite, and the Brewers need to move away from the "he'll pay for himself in the beginning and we'll have to accept that he'll be bad for the final few years" type of deals. No matter how good the player was in the early years, those deals are too crippling for the Brewers in the later years.

If we were to sign any of the guys from the group that hits free agency in a couple years, Adames and Lauer probably make the most sense due to their age and/or the likely cost to sign them. But I think the Brewers are looking at the next class that's coming up. Our current crop of prospects will be bolstered by the inevitable trades of the aforementioned players. That will hopefully stock the team with a crop of good pre-arby guys with a strong farm to keep players coming. They will try to lock some of those guys up to deals like they've signed with Braun (first deal), Lucroy, Peralta and Ashby and push forward with the "continually competitive" mantra.

The current run for the Brewers happened quicker than most imagined, so the farm wasn't able to get stocked up with high draft picks and international signings before the MLB team got successful. We're in transition years, for which I'm grateful that we can still be in the playoff hunt during this period. We're moving to a period where we should have competitive baseball at the MLB level, while having talent at all levels of the farm. Due to some players taking a big leap forward this year, I think we're close to being there, and once there, we will be able to operate in the "Cardinals model." 

[KeithStone53151]

40 minutes ago, monty57 said:

I agree, but that's why I think the Brewers need to model themselves more after the Cardinals than the Rays/A's. The Cardinals have a slightly higher payroll than the Brewers, but they're not a team that can push the luxury tax. They sometimes extend players, and sometimes they trade them away. They sometimes trade for prospects, and sometimes trade prospects away. But, they are always competitive and they always have a strong farm system feeding the MLB club.

The Rays/A's have a business model that works for a small-payroll team. The Cardinals have a business model that works for a mid-payroll team. Since Attanasio has taken over and the team has been a lot more successful on the field, the Brewers have moved from a small-payroll to a mid-payroll team. As such, they can do some things the Rays/A's cannot. 

The Cardinals last 2 opening day payrolls have been $154 and $163 million. The Brewers probably aren't super comfortable going over $120. We need to be a bit more of a hybrid of the two models. Melvin basically picked one guy to give a big contract and build around and that was Braun. Stearns picked Yelich. Giving one guy $20 million back in the early 00s while giving someone close to $30 million currently and then building around them at lower cost with the rest is a pretty good model(assuming you pick well). The Cardinals have a big enough payroll that they can do that with 2 stars. I'm not sure the Brewers have enough that they can put half their payroll into 2 guys and round out a good roster with the other $60 million. The Brewers are also always at risk of having a bad year that really tanks attendance. Yes they can probably go over $120 million if they were a surefire bet to make the playoffs, but I suspect that payroll would be a money loser if they start bad and wind up in the 70s for wins.

[monty57]

16 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

The Cardinals last 2 opening day payrolls have been $154 and $163 million. The Brewers probably aren't super comfortable going over $120. We need to be a bit more of a hybrid of the two models. Melvin basically picked one guy to give a big contract and build around and that was Braun. Stearns picked Yelich. Giving one guy $20 million back in the early 00s while giving someone close to $30 million currently and then building around them at lower cost with the rest is a pretty good model(assuming you pick well). The Cardinals have a big enough payroll that they can do that with 2 stars. I'm not sure the Brewers have enough that they can put half their payroll into 2 guys and round out a good roster with the other $60 million. The Brewers are also always at risk of having a bad year that really tanks attendance. Yes they can probably go over $120 million if they were a surefire bet to make the playoffs, but I suspect that payroll would be a money loser if they start bad and wind up in the 70s for wins.

Agree. There's still a gap. Selig lost the fans. Under Attanasio, the Brewers have shown the fans over the past decade-plus that they are trying to put a winning team on the field, and they've won back a lot of fanbase.

The TV deal (where the big money in baseball lies) is slowly moving up, and with more and more revenue coming from the shared streaming media money, the Brewers are slowly moving further into the mid-market payrolls.

There is still a ways to go, so your "hybrid" idea is probably where the Brewers currently stand. Hopefully they can continue to bring in more revenues and continue to "shrink the gap." I guess I was trying to state that Brewer fans shouldn't expect that everyone will come up, be here for 4-5 years, and then get traded. We have the ability to extend some guys, and sign some free agents. But, trading away guys prior to free agency will be something that will still have to happen somewhat regularly.

[UpandIn]

11 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

I feel like you're looking at Peralta/Ashby and trying to make a comparable. The situations are entirely different. Neither guy was firing off Cy Young seasons when extended and both were sub 2 years service time. Also regarding your comment that teams are giving shorter deals with higher AAV to pitchers, I feel like you're looking at Scherzer/Verlander types with that comment, and both guys are upper 30s. Those aren't comparable at all. The best comparable I can find is the Kershaw extension in 2014. Kershaw had 2 years left on his deal but also had an opt out, so he more or less could negotiate for free agent $. In 2014 he netted 7/215.

I looked through some contracts other pitchers have gotten and was probably a bit overzealous in my estimates. I looked deeper and came up with better numbers. Burnes arm could fall off tomorrow and he'd still get $25m in arbitration the next 2 years combined. With the last 2 seasons of numbers, it's hard to imagine him not commanding a minimum of $35m per year in free agency if he gets there and he'll probably command a 6-7 year commitment. So maybe the Brewers to get in the ballpark could offer 25+4 years of free agency at a discount(25/year) with some option shenanigans and an opt out. 6/125 with a player option for $25m in year 7 with a $10m buyout, and also throw in an opt out after year 2, 3, or 4. Maybe he bites at that, though it might be hard to considering he knows he could get 25+210 over the full length of his deal at free agency and 40m more over the life of the contract the Brewers are offering. Certainly his agent will be providing that context as the agent would probably gently nudge him to max his earning.

All that said, the Brewers may not be willing to offer the contract I mentioned. That's a lot for a pitcher. It's also possible Burnes thinks he's worth 40 per in free agency considering Scherzer got 43. Certainly we could have a conversation but it's probably better during the offseason in case the Brewers do provide a mildly insulting offer.

This is ridiculous and I've entertained this long enough.

Your "feeling," that I was comparing the contract Corbin Burnes was going to contracts given to young pitchers who've yet to become full time starters and who's combined guaranteed money is 36M dollars is...insulting. Just say, "you're a moron who doesn't understand some VERY basic concepts of baseball," it'd be simpler and more honest than saying, 'I think you think Corbin Burnes is gonna get a deal like Aaron Ashby and Freddy Pertalta signed.'

Particularly when I cited Jacob deGrom's 5/137.5 extension at the time as a baseline...with Burnes coming in either under or sans the option because...he hadn't been as good as deGrom. So no, NEVER under the impression they were going to sign Burnes for a grand total of 15.5M guaranteed and then two options for 8M.

And yes, I WAS using Scherzer as a comp because this conversation went off the rails and we started talking about free agent value for a guy who, in this scenario had three years of team control left. But I was also using Bauer who got a 3/102M dollar deal before his...activities became public, and the overall trend in baseball in the last 5-6 years where pitchers get shorter deals with higher AAV. Though even that was pointless AGAIN, Burnes not only WASN'T a FA. That's not insignificant here. He was ACTUALLY closer to Ashby in service time than he was a Free Agent. He's also looking at a FA class that...as things stand or as they stood last year, was about as good as it could possibly get with guys like deGrom, Scherzer, Fried, Buehler, Wheeler, Glasnow, Bieber and about another half of dozen pitchers who either are or have been aces. So probably not getting a 10/400M dollar deal in that class. Probably not getting a 10/300M deal in that class. 

Finally, if the Brewers aren't "willing" to give Corbin Burnes 6/125...which was much lower than anything I'd suggested, BUT, lets go with your hypothetical, if they're not willing to do that, they're just not a serious team. It's just that simple. You sign him to that deal and his trade value ALMOST certainly INCREASES. He hadn't yet turned 27 years old at this point. If you're not going to pay him THAT contract...at a time when you're getting conservatively ~120M a year after increases in National TV Money, Local TV money and revenue sharing...AND you have a whole farm system of highly regarded position players on their way up, then when would you? And we can only put so much on Christian Yelich. He's costing 22M a year, not 40. 

 

And I'm not even complaining about NOT signing him. *****...some people treat questioning the front office on here like a Vampire popping his head out during the day. 

The idea that you would have offended him by just BROACHING the topic of a contract extension with 3 years of service time and MAYBE not offering enough...well, it's kinda moot when you clearly offended him by those discussions NOT taking place.

 

I just don't see any possible argument for NOT feeling him out and inquiring about an extension at what was LIKELY that last time when that was a realistic option.

 

[UpandIn]

9 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

The Cardinals last 2 opening day payrolls have been $154 and $163 million. The Brewers probably aren't super comfortable going over $120. We need to be a bit more of a hybrid of the two models. Melvin basically picked one guy to give a big contract and build around and that was Braun. Stearns picked Yelich. Giving one guy $20 million back in the early 00s while giving someone close to $30 million currently and then building around them at lower cost with the rest is a pretty good model(assuming you pick well). The Cardinals have a big enough payroll that they can do that with 2 stars. I'm not sure the Brewers have enough that they can put half their payroll into 2 guys and round out a good roster with the other $60 million. The Brewers are also always at risk of having a bad year that really tanks attendance. Yes they can probably go over $120 million if they were a surefire bet to make the playoffs, but I suspect that payroll would be a money loser if they start bad and wind up in the 70s for wins.

It's not 2007 anymore, the Brewers are getting 120M a year via TV and revenue sharing before they even account for attendance. 

They're still getting a WHOOLE lot less than the Dodgers...Yankees, Cardinals, Braves. But they're not losing money at 120 with these new TV deals. 

[UpandIn]

9 hours ago, monty57 said:

Agree. There's still a gap. Selig lost the fans. Under Attanasio, the Brewers have shown the fans over the past decade-plus that they are trying to put a winning team on the field, and they've won back a lot of fanbase.

The TV deal (where the big money in baseball lies) is slowly moving up, and with more and more revenue coming from the shared streaming media money, the Brewers are slowly moving further into the mid-market payrolls.

There is still a ways to go, so your "hybrid" idea is probably where the Brewers currently stand. Hopefully they can continue to bring in more revenues and continue to "shrink the gap." I guess I was trying to state that Brewer fans shouldn't expect that everyone will come up, be here for 4-5 years, and then get traded. We have the ability to extend some guys, and sign some free agents. But, trading away guys prior to free agency will be something that will still have to happen somewhat regularly.

The only part about this I'd quibble about is that Selig-Prieb lost fans. I think Bud was pretty damn good, but your point is obvious. He was basically hands off by the time the Molitor situation was just butchered by Bando(though he was brought in at the last minute and offered arbitration and tried to salvage the situation, though failed). 

Other than my slight nod to Bud, I think you nailed it. We can't and won't ever be able to contend with the big markets fiscally, but we're also not the Rays. We can afford to sign another player along with Yellich and his 22M...particularly if we continue to produce via the farm system(Which seems to be coming along quite well at the moment). 

We're seeing even Tampa Bay committing massive resources to a totally unproven player. The Indians extending Ramirez for 7/142 when everyone assumed it was a given he was gone. There are owners like the Nuttings who are seemingly in it for the tax free revenue their Sports team generates, but I've never got that impression from Attanasio and...again, I believed him when he said they could have made ANY trade that was out there and been able to afford it. I don't think the trade deadline was a mandate, I think it was Stearns just making a call.

We won't be competing for Aaron Judge of Ohtani in free agency...but we should be capable of extending proven MLB players prior to their FA years...on occasion at least. 

As always, the earlier the better. 

[Jopal78]

6 hours ago, UpandIn said:

The only part about this I'd quibble about is that Selig-Prieb lost fans. I think Bud was pretty damn good, but your point is obvious. He was basically hands off by the time the Molitor situation was just butchered by Bando(though he was brought in at the last minute and offered arbitration and tried to salvage the situation, though failed). 

Other than my slight nod to Bud, I think you nailed it. We can't and won't ever be able to contend with the big markets fiscally, but we're also not the Rays. We can afford to sign another player along with Yellich and his 22M...particularly if we continue to produce via the farm system(Which seems to be coming along quite well at the moment). 

We're seeing even Tampa Bay committing massive resources to a totally unproven player. The Indians extending Ramirez for 7/142 when everyone assumed it was a given he was gone. There are owners like the Nuttings who are seemingly in it for the tax free revenue their Sports team generates, but I've never got that impression from Attanasio and...again, I believed him when he said they could have made ANY trade that was out there and been able to afford it. I don't think the trade deadline was a mandate, I think it was Stearns just making a call.

We won't be competing for Aaron Judge of Ohtani in free agency...but we should be capable of extending proven MLB players prior to their FA years...on occasion at least. 

As always, the earlier the better. 

You understand that Ramirez is the ONLY player making significant money in Cleveland, right? There’s not another player making over 6 million, and they don’t have any other big money long term contracts. So sighting this deal, doesn’t make any sense. 

Not to mention Ramirez’s current contract pastes over a very team friendly deal he had signed in 2015.

In fact, Cleveland hasnt signed Shane Bieber to an extension  despite, like Burnes, being one of the best pitchers and having years of control left.

I think I get your argument but it’s all speculation what you “think” they could do, rather than looking at past conduct as an indicator of future conduct. 

[UpandIn]

13 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

You understand that Ramirez is the ONLY player making significant money in Cleveland, right? There’s not another player making over 6 million, and they don’t have any other big money long term contracts. So sighting this deal, doesn’t make any sense. 

Not to mention Ramirez’s current contract pastes over a very team friendly deal he had signed in 2015.

In fact, Cleveland hasnt signed Shane Bieber to an extension  despite, like Burnes, being one of the best pitchers and having years of control left.

I think I get your argument but it’s all speculation what you “think” they could do, rather than looking at past conduct as an indicator of future conduct. 

Yeah, here again, if that's what you think, you're having a WHOLE lot of trouble with reading comprehension.

 

My thought...and frankly I'm shocked I have to continue to dumb this down this much, but they are that the Brewers...SHOULD HAVE SPOKEN WITH BURNES OR HIS AGENTS.

And guess what? That team that you were just "sighting," they DID offer Bieber an extension. He didn't sign it, but they DID offer it. They at LEAST talked about it...which for some reason, is a SHOCKING concept that you are absolutely blown away by apparently.

13 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

I think I get your argument but it’s all speculation what you “think” they could do, rather than looking at past conduct as an indicator of future conduct. 

Really? PLEASE do explain how it's "speculation," with regard to TALKING to a pitcher about a contract extension?

Make that one make sense?

 

On 9/16/2022 at 11:35 AM, Jopal78 said:

Fans want to emulate the Tampa or Oakland model of team building

Who the hell wants to emulate the Oakland model of team building? 

[Team Canada]

Let's tone it all down and pretend you're talking with friends and not someone who you think is an idiot.