Castillo Extension as Woodruff Comp?

[Jopal78]

14 hours ago, UpandIn said:

Yeah, I don't agree with that. You can absolutely be the "Rays-lite" and we've been pretty much just that. The Rays draw about 9 fans a game and they're generally from the opposing teams.

We carry a payroll about 40-80M higher than the Rays or the Guardians. The Guardians for SOME strange reason didn't flip their 3B who everyone was absolutely certain they'd trade.

Also, who said we have to follow either teams  philosophy exactly to a T? 

Finally...every player is aging. There are no Benjamin Buttons in professional baseball. 5 years for pitchers the Brewers have been EXTREMELY careful about not abusing and overworking isn't quite like locking up Verlander for a 5 year deal(Which...honestly, I would bet would also work out just fine in that particular situation). 

The Rays and Indians have remained consistently competitive running smaller budgets because they have shown the discipline to keep the pipeline of young cheap talent flowing by shuffling the deck and trading their stars while they still can.

Nathan Eovaldi and Chris Archer were swapped off by the Rays and netted them Jalen Beeks, Tyler Glasnow, Shane Baz and Austin Meadows.

Having Glasnow and Baz in the organization allowed them to acquire Francisco Mejia , Luis Patino and others for Blake Snell. Plus, they then flipped  Matthew Liberatore for Randy Arozarena and a 1st round competitive balance pick. Then they restocked their pitching by flipping Adames to Milwaukee for Drew Rasmussen and Feyereisen. Then they flipped Austin Meadows to Detroit for Isaac Paredes.

The Brewers probably could sign Woodruff to an extension, but they probably shouldn't given the talent they could get in return to keep the pipeline of quality young players flowing to Milwaukee. 

With Ashby, Peralta, Lauer, Houser and Gasser in AAA. It wouldn't surprise me if they traded Woodruff and/or Burnes this off season to further increase their young talent level. 

[UpandIn]

1 hour ago, monty57 said:

Let's say Burnes is out of the question for an extension, but we could afford one of Woodruff or Adames. All else being equal, who would everyone choose to extend between those two?

I think I'd go with Woodruff. With the pitching we have in the organization, having him as an "ace of staff" should help maintain our pitching as a strength, even as some of the other guys (Lauer, Houser, etc.) are traded or leave for free agency over the next few years.

Meanwhile, most of our MLB ready prospects are position players. As they come up and help out offensively and defensively, we can move Turang to SS and still maintain a good "position player group." Even if Turang doesn't work out, I think it should be easier to find a SS than it would be to go out and sign another #1 pitcher.

I love Willy, but it'd be Woodruff. Having an ace to anchor our BP would definitely my preference and as you say, I think it's easier to go find a SS than it is a TOR arm. 

[UpandIn]

9 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

The Rays and Indians have remained consistently competitive running smaller budgets because they have shown the discipline to keep the pipeline of young cheap talent flowing by shuffling the deck and trading their stars while they still can.

Nathan Eovaldi and Chris Archer were swapped off by the Rays and netted them Jalen Beeks, Tyler Glasnow, Shane Baz and Austin Meadows.

Having Glasnow and Baz in the organization allowed them to acquire Francisco Mejia , Luis Patino and others for Blake Snell. Plus, they then flipped  Matthew Liberatore for Randy Arozarena and a 1st round competitive balance pick. Then they restocked their pitching by flipping Adames to Milwaukee for Drew Rasmussen and Feyereisen. Then they flipped Austin Meadows to Detroit for Isaac Paredes.

The Brewers probably could sign Woodruff to an extension, but they probably shouldn't given the talent they could get in return to keep the pipeline of quality young players flowing to Milwaukee. 

With Ashby, Peralta, Lauer, Houser and Gasser in AAA. It wouldn't surprise me if they traded Woodruff and/or Burnes this off season to further increase their young talent level. 

Lets stop acting that trading off Chris Archer was some brilliant act on behalf of the Rays. We all laughed at that trade in real time.

And you don't think there have been any players they might have wanted to keep, but were unable to afford as they run out one of the 3-4 lowest payrolls year after year?

Every time we develop a good player, we really don't need to hear, "But the Rays." Yeah, the Rays are really good at what they do. Mostly in identifying talent and developing it themselves more than anything.

That doesn't make me want to trade ANY of our best pitchers or our young SS. But we're also not the Mets. So we won't be able to keep them all. I get that. There are no stringent standards we absolutely must adhere to. 

[wiguy94]

1 hour ago, Outlander said:

Would certainly choose Adames over Woodruff, age 29 vs 32. Have discussed Woodruff/Burnes but not Lauer. If say he signed a 4 year contract this off season it would cover two free agent years and take him through 31. Prefer Lauer extension over Woodruff as well. Peralta/Ashby/Lauer/Gasser is okay and should get a decent SP prospect or two when they trade Burnes/Woodruff. Small could still be an okay 4/5 as well.

What's the point of extending Lauer? Over the last two years he has a 112 ERA+ and 4.43 FIP. His xFIP and SIERA over the last two years is 4.24 and 4.22. I don't really see anything that suggests the Brewers should extend him. 

[UpandIn]

11 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

What's the point of extending Lauer? Over the last two years he has a 112 ERA+ and 4.43 FIP. His xFIP and SIERA over the last two years is 4.24 and 4.22. I don't really see anything that suggests the Brewers should extend him. 

He's a nice pitcher and a good #3/4. I don't think he's in the conversation with the other 3 players we're talking about(or the 2 we're talking about and the one we're not talking about). 

I'd extend him...probably. But he'd be well down on my list of priorities. You DO have replacements for Lauer in your farm system...you don't have power arms ready to step atop your rotation. At least I don't think you do. Maybe Ashby and Gasser become those pitchers. I skeptical. 

[jay87shot]

3 hours ago, monty57 said:

Let's say Burnes is out of the question for an extension, but we could afford one of Woodruff or Adames. All else being equal, who would everyone choose to extend between those two?

I think if you say both guys are going to get similar deals I would be split. Personally I am a pitching first type fan, however our offense has been so hard to watch and Adames has been the only bright spot for two years. 

In the end, I will go with Adames. First off I would worry less about injuries for Adames, 2nd if Adames losses a step defensively he can be a top move 3rd baseman and still be a high end player where if Woody loses 3-5 mph on his heater I doubt he is much more than a 3/4 type starter, 3rd I think Willy is more of a clubhouse leader. Turang can play 2nd for a couple of years and then shift to SS and Wily to 3rd. We also have Peralta and Ashby on team friendly deals so we could easily compete with a Ashby/Peralta lead rotation especially when you would add in 2+ high end arms from a Burnes and Woody deal and spend some money on 1 year deals for older vet pitchers.

[MrTPlush]

2 hours ago, Outlander said:

Would certainly choose Adames over Woodruff, age 29 vs 32. Have discussed Woodruff/Burnes but not Lauer. If say he signed a 4 year contract this off season it would cover two free agent years and take him through 31. Prefer Lauer extension over Woodruff as well. Peralta/Ashby/Lauer/Gasser is okay and should get a decent SP prospect or two when they trade Burnes/Woodruff. Small could still be an okay 4/5 as well.

You are assuming Adames would sign a 4 year deal. I am not sure that is feasible, he is a little far in arbitration to be putting himself in a bad situation to get a FA contract. If he hits FA at 29 he is looking at a mega contract if he continues to be a Top 10 SS in baseball. Even a drop off and he could do better.

Adames could be looking at a 7/8 years at mega money. If he signs an extension he isn't getting mega money now or when he hits FA at 31. Usually guys sign contracts pre-FA that still allow that mega payday. 

The entire point of Woodruff is because we can realistically sign him to a small/shorter deal. I don't see that happening with Adames. He is like Burnes. An extension might as well be his last contract he ever signs. 

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, UpandIn said:

 

Every time we develop a good player, we really don't need to hear, "But the Rays." Yeah, the Rays are really good at what they do. Mostly in identifying talent and developing it themselves more than anything.

 

You are incorrect there. Lets take a look at their roster....

C-Mejia-Trade/Blake Snell

1B-Choi-Trade/Brad Miller

2B-Paredes-Trade/Meadows

SS-Walls-Draft '17

3B-Diaz-Trade/Jake Bauers

LF-Arozarena-Trade/Liberatore

CF-Kiermaier-Draft '10

RF-Margot-Trade/Emilio Pagan

DH-Ramirez-Trade/Estaban Quiroz

SP-McClanahan-Draft '18

SP-Kluber-UFA

SP-Rasmussen-Trade/Adames

SP-Springs-Trade Hernandez/Sogard

SP-Yarbrough-Trade/Smiley

SP-Baz-Trade/Archer

Those have been their regulars based on games played. To be fair both Lowe-Draft '16, and Franco (Int'1) have been hurt but otherwise would start. Also, Tyler Glasnow-Trade/Archer has been out all year with an arm injury. Far and away most of their players came over in trades for veteran players. 

Unless a team has a payroll of 175 million dollars or more, the margin of error is nearly zero in trying to build with only it's own prospects. 

Constantly churning the roster trading away those quality veterans (especially starting pitchers) for younger players is the only way teams like the Brewers, Rays, Guardians, etc. can keep it rolling at the big league level without a period of tanking.  That's why the Brewers will ultimately trade both Woodruff and Burnes, the only question is timing. 

 

[wiguy94]

55 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

He's a nice pitcher and a good #3/4. I don't think he's in the conversation with the other 3 players we're talking about(or the 2 we're talking about and the one we're not talking about). 

I'd extend him...probably. But he'd be well down on my list of priorities. You DO have replacements for Lauer in your farm system...you don't have power arms ready to step atop your rotation. At least I don't think you do. Maybe Ashby and Gasser become those pitchers. I skeptical. 

I just don’t see the reason the Brewers would extend Lauer. Pitchers of Lauer’s ability rarely ever get extensions. They are pretty much exclusively handled year by year. Out of the 109 SP with 200 IP in the last two years, Lauer is 85th in FIP, 89th in HR/9, and 79th in K/BB.  Locking ourselves into 4 years of a pitcher of Lauer’s caliber seems like a move we would likely come to regret. 

[UpandIn]

1 minute ago, wiguy94 said:

I just don’t see the reason the Brewers would extend Lauer. Pitchers of Lauer’s ability rarely ever get extensions. They are pretty much exclusively handled year by year. Out of the 109 SP with 200 IP in the last two years, Lauer is 85th in FIP, 89th in HR/9, and 79th in K/BB.  Locking ourselves into 4 years of a pitcher of Lauer’s caliber seems like a move we would likely come to regret. 

Yeah...I get that, but it's also not like we're talking about locking HIM in at 20M for those FA years. 

Also...I think Lauer's a little better than those numbers suggest. He's had a couple of blowup's that have skewed it. I guess you're right, I wouldn't really bother unless that was very team friendly. He has stretches where he looks so good, but you can also go year to year. I can still see him getting better, but he shouldn't be an alternative to signing Burnes/Woodruff/Adames. 

[UpandIn]

5 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

You are incorrect there. Lets take a look at their roster....

C-Mejia-Trade/Blake Snell

1B-Choi-Trade/Brad Miller

2B-Paredes-Trade/Meadows

SS-Walls-Draft '17

3B-Diaz-Trade/Jake Bauers

LF-Arozarena-Trade/Liberatore

CF-Kiermaier-Draft '10

RF-Margot-Trade/Emilio Pagan

DH-Ramirez-Trade/Estaban Quiroz

SP-McClanahan-Draft '18

SP-Kluber-UFA

SP-Rasmussen-Trade/Adames

SP-Springs-Trade Hernandez/Sogard

SP-Yarbrough-Trade/Smiley

SP-Baz-Trade/Archer

Those have been their regulars based on games played. To be fair both Lowe-Draft '16, and Franco (Int'1) have been hurt but otherwise would start. Also, Tyler Glasnow-Trade/Archer has been out all year with an arm injury. Far and away most of their players came over in trades for veteran players. 

Unless a team has a payroll of 175 million dollars or more, the margin of error is nearly zero in trying to build with only it's own prospects. 

Constantly churning the roster trading away those quality veterans (especially starting pitchers) for younger players is the only way teams like the Brewers, Rays, Guardians, etc. can keep it rolling at the big league level without a period of tanking.  That's why the Brewers will ultimately trade both Woodruff and Burnes, the only question is timing. 

 

I'm incorrect, they're NOT good at identifying talent and developing it? How are they doing so well in trades if they can't identify talent and then develop it? ALL of those players were established big leaguers? Or are you just giving me the Rays trade tree again like the 9th time will somehow change my own personal preference to re-sign one of our own aces?

 

 

I'm also not spending too much time on that list because...again, I really don't care, but...I do think it's a little funny how Wander Franco doesn't make it. Like...he just doesn't count because he got hurt this year...or their top prospects who were all acquired by the team OR traded for very-very early into their careers. 

But I cannot reiterate enough, I do not care. The Rays have about half the payroll we do. Beacuse they're forced to trade everyone doesn't mean we are. We just have to trade most people...and I'm sure you'll be very pleased when we do. 

 

 

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, UpandIn said:

I'm incorrect, they're NOT good at identifying talent and developing it? How are they doing so well in trades if they can't identify talent and then develop it? ALL of those players were established big leaguers? Or are you just giving me the Rays trade tree again like the 9th time will somehow change my own personal preference to re-sign one of our own aces?

 

 

I'm also not spending too much time on that list because...again, I really don't care, but...I do think it's a little funny how Wander Franco doesn't make it. Like...he just doesn't count because he got hurt this year...or their top prospects who were all acquired by the team OR traded for very-very early into their careers. 

But I cannot reiterate enough, I do not care. The Rays have about half the payroll we do. Beacuse they're forced to trade everyone doesn't mean we are. We just have to trade most people...and I'm sure you'll be very pleased when we do. 

 

 

Are you 12? Because it seems like you either don't remember much beyond the last four years or choose to ignore it. One can count the number of big money extensions given out by the Brewers on one hand (Braun and Yelich). Meanwhile, you will begin to run out of fingers counting the "star" players the Brewers have sent packing before they were eligible for free agency: Greg Vaughn, Jeff Cirillo, Richie Sexson, Carlos Lee, Zack Greinke, Yovanni Gallardo, Carlos Gomez, Jonathan Lucroy, and now Josh Hader. 

Sure, they might not be "forced" to trade everyone like Tampa, but they still do, so what difference does it make? The Milwaukee Brewers market sucked in the 90's, and despite finding some additional revenue streams in the last 30 years,  it still sucks today. That's why they will trade them all, and to suggest they're suddenly going to change course and do things differently is nonsense.

[UpandIn]

18 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Are you 12? Because it seems like you either don't remember much beyond the last four years or choose to ignore it. One can count the number of big money extensions given out by the Brewers on one hand (Braun and Yelich). Meanwhile, you will begin to run out of fingers counting the "star" players the Brewers have sent packing before they were eligible for free agency: Greg Vaughn, Jeff Cirillo, Richie Sexson, Carlos Lee, Zack Greinke, Yovanni Gallardo, Carlos Gomez, Jonathan Lucroy, and now Josh Hader. 

Sure, they might not be "forced" to trade everyone like Tampa, but they still do, so what difference does it make? The Milwaukee Brewers market sucked in the 90's, and despite finding some additional revenue streams in the last 30 years,  it still sucks today. That's why they will trade them all, and to suggest they're suddenly going to change course and do things differently is nonsense.

LOL...sure. Because this is the EXACT same situation as Greg Vaughn and Richie Sexton...

Quote

Sure, they might not be "forced" to trade everyone like Tampa, but they still do, so what difference does it make?

But they don't. You know how I know this? Tell me what team Christian Yelich plays for?

 

I get it. I understand your point. I thought I could disagree that they HAD to trade away every player they developed, but I forgot the legendary Marc Newfield trade when the Brewers...in a VERY similar situation to what they're in right now with a competitive team and a young nucleus of players coming up, they opted to trade away...Greg Vaughn. A very reasonable comp and so very relevant to this current discussion. That's definitely the key to keeping us competitive. 

I guess that Christian Yelich trade, the Lorenzo Cain signing, the 100M offer they made to Yu Darvish...those must have been nonsense as well.

How about when the Brewers were leading the league in payroll in the 80s and signing Yount to the largest deal in MLB history? Is THAT also somehow relevant?

 

Tell me what I need to do please? Obviously just MOSTLY agreeing with you is...not good enough. Absolute capitulation what ya need bud?

Lets pencil Sal Frelick in for the 2026 trade deadline! I'm on board! Nobody stays in Milwaukee for more than 4 years! 

[NBBrewFan]

I think the Guardians are the downside of the strategy of trading away most of your star/going to be FA players. Their attendance in a larger market is less than 60% of what the Brewers are doing.  Even with the Extension of Jose Ramirez, their fanbase hasn't responded by spending money on the product.  I estimate that the gap between what the Brewers and Guardians draw is costing the Guardians $50M in revenue on pretty much the exact same expense.  That's a significant downside for any team in the mid to low markets of MLB.  There is a revenue advantage to having "star" players extended and while there is a good argument not to do it, there are number$ that support the "investment". I don't think the Rays have any concern about attendance as it's always been bad even when they have competitive teams so they don't see any value in keeping players long into an extension.

To the topic of extensions, the Brewers have shown a willingness when it made sense.  Making sense to the Brewers is when they are getting some advantage over the free Market Price.  While the Yelich contract is almost universally panned here, the Brewers made the decision because they felt it was a value signing given his play at the time and the free market price for that level of performance.  They signed Peralta and Ashby because both contracts gave them value.  I think the Brewers will approach Woodruff because they can possibly get very good value if the price/years was in the Castillo ballpark. ($20M AAV is excellent value for a player that's capable of 4 WAR a year).  I don't think they will get something close to a value with Adames, but who knows until they ask.  Their FA signings have almost always been team friendly deals or value deals.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.  If they can't get an extension from Woodruff they likely will trade him first then look to moving Adames/Burnes/Renfroe later in the year (2023 trade deadline depending on where 2023 is going) or after 2023 (Adames/Burnes).  And they should as I don't think anything short of a going deep into the playoffs is going to push attendance back to 2018/2019 levels, but personally I would pay to go to watch prospects taking their lumps than watch an aging vet like McCutcheon maybe have a game that resembles their prime. 

[MrTPlush]

24 minutes ago, NBBrewFan said:

I think the Guardians are the downside of the strategy of trading away most of your star/going to be FA players. Their attendance in a larger market is less than 60% of what the Brewers are doing.  Even with the Extension of Jose Ramirez, their fanbase hasn't responded by spending money on the product.  I estimate that the gap between what the Brewers and Guardians draw is costing the Guardians $50M in revenue on pretty much the exact same expense.  That's a significant downside for any team in the mid to low markets of MLB.  There is a revenue advantage to having "star" players extended and while there is a good argument not to do it, there are number$ that support the "investment". I don't think the Rays have any concern about attendance as it's always been bad even when they have competitive teams so they don't see any value in keeping players long into an extension.

 

Except the Indians have never really drawn a crowd. They drew  barely over 2mil the year after they almost won the World Series and a pathetic 1.6mil the year of that world series.

[NBBrewFan]

31 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Except the Indians have never really drawn a crowd. They drew  barely over 2mil the year after they almost won the World Series and a pathetic 1.6mil the year of that world series.

In recent memory that's true, but in the late 90's early 2000's they were selling out Jacob's field nightly and had 6 straight years of over 3M in attendance.  The main issue I think is that after the Dolan's bought the team in 2000 they went into a selloff and "tank" within 3 years which didn't sit well with the fans as that was the initial get rid of players as they reach free agency, which has pretty much continued on to this day and has hardened the fans. In many ways similar to the Huizenga tear down after the Marlins first World Series win, except he sold the team and another ownership group started with a clean slate.  The Indians/Guardians have the same ownership that's turned off a lot of fans. A new ownership group might be needed to bring back the really pissed off fans.  I still assert the initial tear down and continual trading/not signing of players as they hit free agency lead from a team that could bring in 3M fans into a team that struggles to get to half of that. That's a significant revenue loss based on team building philosophy.

[reillymcshane]

The thing is that if we don't extend Burnes and/or Woodruff, they instantly become a source of trade speculation - which can make things a bit awkward for all parties. 

I mean, we could keep them until they are FAs - but logic says to deal them earlier so we get a much better return. 

I guess it's just the way of things in our market...

[Jopal78]

4 hours ago, UpandIn said:

LOL...sure. Because this is the EXACT same situation as Greg Vaughn and Richie Sexton...

 

For starters its Sexson, so you’re coming out of the box with little credibility. 

But really, all I’m doing is pointing out facts to you, dump on them all you want it doesn’t make them any less true. 
 

To recap: In the last 30 years the Brewers have had two guys they paid over 20 million a year for, and they have never had two guys making that amount at the same time.

Thus, unless the Brewers suddenly buck 30+ years of history, Woodruff and Burnes will most likely both be wearing different unis when they hit six years of service time. Enjoy them. 

 

[UpandIn]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

For starters its Sexson, so you’re coming out of the box with little credibility. 

But really, all I’m doing is pointing out facts to you, dump on them all you want it doesn’t make them any less true. 
 

To recap: In the last 30 years the Brewers have had two guys they paid over 20 million a year for, and they have never had two guys making that amount at the same time.

Thus, unless the Brewers suddenly buck 30+ years of history, Woodruff and Burnes will most likely both be wearing different unis when they hit six years of service time. Enjoy them. 

 

LOL...oh...got me there. I spelled Big Sexy's name wrong! I guess that means everything else is invalid!

 

Jeeesus.  I said you're right? What more do you want? I ALREADY have Sal Frelick's trade scheduled juuust a little bit after Mitchell's and a little before Turang's...you shouldn't ever attempt to re-sign anyone unless they sign their 1st year or service time(but in Burnes case you still wouldn't have done that) because they bring back more value in trades and that is WITHOUT exception and if I don't agree ABSOLUTELY with you, you're gonna keep hounding the hell outta me on every thread. So you're right. Nothing has changed. 30 years ago MLB was FILLED with players making 20M a year, the Brewers were a good competitive team and it makes all the sense in the world to compare those two IDENTICAL periods in Brewers baseball.

Oh, and we should NOT aim to be Rays or Guardians-lite, we should do exactly as they have done. No questions. Follow their ideology to a T, absolutely never deviate no matter the circumstances.

And anyone in this thread who wanted to sign any of these players doesn't understand that's just nonsense because...you're the only one that gets it. That revenue is objectively going up means nothing, that we have two players THIS YEAR making 40 million combined and there's a significant bump coming in revenue coming...does-not-matter, you NEVER deviate. That is the only way to win and run a baseball team. Doesn't matter if you have prime Mike Trout(unless he's willing to take 19.9M a year maybe? I don't know, get back to me on that one) you trade him!

WE good now or will this spill over into 5 or 6 more threads?

 

I really never thought answering the question of the thread would get this...yipping that won't stop. I'm also sorry for suggesting they maybe should have tried to sign Burnes earlier during team control. That was OBVIOUSLY outlandish and not something the Rays would do(other than the times they did it...like when they traded that pitcher for Meadows, Baz and Glasnow).

 

[wiguy94]

2 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

I really never thought answering the question of the thread would get this...yipping that won't stop. I'm also sorry for suggesting they maybe should have tried to sign Burnes earlier during team control. That was OBVIOUSLY outlandish and not something the Rays would do(other than the times they did it...like when they traded that pitcher for Meadows, Baz and Glasnow).

 

Why do you continue speaking like the Brewers absolutely did not try to sign Burnes earlier during team control is a fact and not rampant speculation from you?

[UpandIn]

3 hours ago, reillymcshane said:

The thing is that if we don't extend Burnes and/or Woodruff, they instantly become a source of trade speculation - which can make things a bit awkward for all parties. 

I mean, we could keep them until they are FAs - but logic says to deal them earlier so we get a much better return. 

I guess it's just the way of things in our market...

Yeah, that's kinda inevitable though. It's like that across the league. Players know how it is. Especially in the wake of Hader.

They'll likely make some type of offers. If they're serious...maybe they extend someone. If they're of the Prince Fielder variety, then I'd guess they'd put them on the market asking for the Grayson Rodriguez/Jackson Holliday type return someone(might have been you) suggested in the Burnes thread or until a team meets their respective prices, possibly at the deadline. 

 

[UpandIn]

6 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

Why do you continue speaking like the Brewers absolutely did not try to sign Burnes earlier during team control is a fact and not rampant speculation from you?

I don't. I only know they didn't try to sign them last year. At which point in the Burnes thread the question was put to me when exactly SHOULD they have signed them and then rattled off why each prior year wouldn't have been a good time to sign them.

I have no idea if they tried or did not try to sign Burnes his 1st or 2nd year of team control. I only know he was miffed they didn't approach him last year and in the thread I was referencing, there was NEVER a wise time to extend him. He was unproven, then terrible, then it was only a short season and that takes us to last year when he won a Cy Young and was already too expensive being the rationale. 

 

So no, I'm not suggesting they never tried to extend him and I'm certainly not saying it as though it's fact. 

Quote

I don't think the Brewers are or ever were going to reach to Burnes for a contract extension.  If they were it would have been in 2018.

Quote

Exactly when should the Brewers offered an extension to Burnes? In 2019 he has an 8.82 ERA, allowed 13 hits/9, allowed 17 HRs in only 49 IPs, and had an 1.84 WHIP.  In 2020 he did much better, but they certainly aren't going to offer a big money extension based on one shortened season. He was great in 2021, but by that time he and his agent are looking for mega money and a long term contract.  

Just two different comments from about 15 seconds...which is about all the more I'm going to spend on this. 

[clancyphile]

The fact is, the time to offer Burnes an extension was this past off-season, and even then, the only way to make it work for the Crew financially would have been to go the Bobby Bonilla route - with a LOT of the money deferred.

The real issue is that the Brewers are in a small market, and the fact is, they are unable to go toe-to-toe with the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, Padres, or Angels in terms of payroll.

Can they work out something with Yelich to defer more of the contract? I don't know. The MLBPA may get involved with some of this, too.

Realistically, Burnes and Woodruff will likely be moved, but the Brewers going to the next guys up.

The next generational talent they bring up... especially if it's one of the top prospects... they may need to look to Bonilla to keep them in Milwaukee long-term.

[thebruce44]

Just wanted to post this , as I wasn't expecting it when I looked up. Top WAR leaders over the last 3 years from Fangraphs. It would be a hard pill to swallow to lose both of them. I'd personally prioritize extending Woody over Adames. We have been absolutely spoiled the last few years.

#	Name	Team	W	L	SV	G	GS	IP	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	BABIP	LOB%	GB%	HR/FB	vFA (pi)	ERA	xERA	FIP	xFIP	WAR
1   Page size:  29 items in 1 pages
1	Corbin Burnes	MIL	26	14	0	71	68	417.2	11.92	2.35	0.69	.284	76.6%	47.3%	10.1%	96.1	2.69		2.44	2.69	14.0
2	Zack Wheeler	PHI	29	19	0	68	68	432.1	9.49	2.00	0.67	.292	75.7%	49.6%	10.0%	96.9	2.85		2.83	3.10	13.0
3	Aaron Nola	PHI	24	27	0	75	75	450.1	10.89	1.82	1.08	.297	70.2%	43.3%	12.7%	93.0	3.86		3.03	3.03	12.2
4	Kevin Gausman	- - -	29	19	0	75	73	423.1	10.78	2.00	0.91	.315	75.9%	40.8%	10.7%	94.9	3.13		2.78	3.04	11.9
5	Sandy Alcantara	MIA	26	25	0	71	71	468.1	8.44	2.21	0.79	.267	74.5%	53.0%	11.0%	97.9	2.77		3.27	3.45	10.4
6	Brandon Woodruff	MIL	25	19	0	69	69	400.1	10.90	2.29	0.99	.273	79.9%	41.5%	12.1%	96.5	2.83		3.04	3.13	10.3
7	Max Fried	ATL	34	14	0	68	68	402.0	8.40	2.06	0.65	.278	77.9%	51.6%	9.2%	93.9	2.69		3.02	3.38	10.1
8	Yu Darvish	- - -	32	21	0	71	71	431.0	10.09	1.96	1.13	.265	76.8%	38.1%	11.6%	95.0	3.32		3.34	3.51	10.0
9	Gerrit Cole	NYY	36	18	0	74	74	449.0	11.73	2.16	1.40	.278	79.3%	41.9%	15.8%	97.6	3.29		3.33	2.95	9.7
10	Luis Castillo	- - -	19	28	0	69	69	402.0	9.85	3.20	0.83	.306	72.5%	53.4%	12.5%	97.3	3.51		3.35	3.37	9.7