Looking ahead to 2023 Brewers

[mtsportsfan]

1 hour ago, Outlander said:

I don't think Turang is a starter. Predict they sign Drury at 3B, Urias at 2B and have Turang as super sub. He plays a lot still because 2B, SS and 3B are right handed. 

 

 

 

 

I like the idea of signing of Drury , wanted him at the deadline . solid bat and glove ! Pipe dream  but if we add him and Contreras it really would  be a nice looking lineup!

[NBBrewFan]

I'm not that high on Drury as others.  For his career he has 3.6 fWAR and 3.0 came last year.  Did he finally "get it" in his age 29 season or did he just put up a career year that will never be approached. I'm betting there will be some deeper pockets that think the former and he will just be too expensive for the risk (I hope). Peterson is a lower risk, lower ceiling signing that will probably be significantly cheaper. Just picking up Wong's option would likely be better money spent until they get a good look at Turang. Contreras will be 31 in May of next year so he doesn't have a ton of mileage left on his legs to be a full-time catcher for long. Especially as he will be looking for a 5 yr or longer contract.  We already have Yelich who's best value over the remainder of his contract is at DH. Someone like Jansen from Toronto is a much better option for a full-time C given the cost and age/timeline.

Edit: I love Murphy from Oakland, but the cost to get him would likely be most of our OF prospects so getting him would be an all-in move for 2023 leaving a pretty empty cupboard.

[Lathund]

I think the 2023 Brewers can go in two different directions (I'm not including "total teardown" as an option, as they've been very clear they're not going to do that. Nor am I seriously considering a true all in that'd necessitate a more complete sell-off after 2023), which is largely based on the fact that Woodruff/Burnes/Adames (And Houser/Lauer) are FAs after 2024. Meaning that you can run most of the team back in 2023 and with some additions have an excellent chance of winning the division, see who you can extend and then deal with the trades after 2023. Or you could start the "retool" now, trade a couple of players for near-MLB ready talent (Like the Chris Archer trade), and still have a chance at the playoffs but one that needs a bit of help with injuries/randomness. 

In all this, I will also assume the payroll will be similar to 2021 and 2022. If ownership is willing to let it go up $10-$20m that opens more options. But I don't think that's likely. 

Firstly about extentions; I don't know why people buy the narrative that Brewers haven't been looking into extending Burnes/Woodruff. They extended Peralta/Ashby, they'll for sure have run similar deals by the others earlier on, and in some other fashion later on as well most likely. And I don't think Burnes saying there hasn't been contract negotiations even contradicts that. They'll always be talking to players' agents, getting a rough idea of what kind of deal Burnes would be looking at. If that's too far off what's realistic for the Brewers, then they might be better off not making an "insulting" offer to begin with. He might not even be all that interested to begin with, we don't know. Or might be interested only at full market value. I bring the contracts up because extending one of them would obviously impact the plans. 

In general though, the division is very winnable. Cardinals will be in the running, they always are, but they're really not as good as they seemed this year. Arenado prior to this year: 118 wRC+. Arenado in 2023: 153 wRC+. Goldschmidt career pre-2023; 141 wRC+. 2023, aged 34, 177 wRC+. Albert Pujols last 10 years 105 wRC+, last 5 84 wRC+. But in 2023, 150 wRC+. Offensive overperformance, one of the least injured teams in the league etc. I think the Brewers and Cardinals were pretty similar on paper, Brewers being a bit better. To take it in "Projection speak", Brewers will win most of the time if you run the 2022 season 10,000 times. But the actual season ended with the Cardinals with like a 70th-80th percentile outcome, while Brewers were more like 40th. This is a long-winded way to say that selling too much would be ill-advised, yet that the division can be won even in a year that combines being a "seller" and a "buyer". 

If the team and Burnes are far apart on a new contract, I'd listen to offers. I'd be very selective and only act if blown away, but a team in win-now mode could pay a *lot* for two years of Burnes. So I would at the very least listen to what could be one of the biggest SP trades in a long time. Naturally, if a Burnes trade happens I'd lean much more towards the earlier retool. If not, slightly more "going for it" makes sense. 

So down to business. A "retool/step back" approach in 2023 would be something like this to me; 
If he can't be extended, trade Burnes for the right offer, including major-league ready talent ideally including a starter. Trade one of Houser/Lauer. Sound out the market for exercising Wong's option and trading him, if there isn't one then decline it. Keep Renfroe; this team got absolutely killed by lefties and he's one of the few who hit them well. Give plenty of time to the OF prospects as well as Turang and Feliciano. Spend every penny saved on Hader/Burnes/Wong/Cutch/Cain/Narvaez/Houser on the best 1-year FAs you can, mainly at C/corner RHH bat/setup man/starter. Perhaps trade some lesser prospects for fringe/blocked MLBers with some upside. Try to focus on starter depth. So in other words, you plan to get more from the DH/CF/LF/C spots via the rookies and 1-2 short-term signings like 2019 Moose or 2022 Drury outperforming Cain/Cutch/Narvaez/Davis. Count on staying even or even improving a little (As I think progression is more likely than regression for that group overall) at 1B/2B/3B/SS/RF with staying pat other than Turang instead of Wong and perhaps a RHH corner bat added. A starting rotation without Burnes will naturally be weaker no matter how you slice it. Getting more out of the 4th-7th spots via focusing on depth can make up for some of it. Better defense and better luck with injuries can have a big impact too, but injuries could always end up even worse instead so not something to count on. For the bullpen, we have one of the best relievers in the game in Williams still. Bush had an excellent season before coming here, so I think he'll recover. Cousins/Topa/Milner/Strzelecki are all solid and mostly optionable middle relievers. I normally don't think spending on relievers is a smart move, but spending a few million on a couple of 1-year deals for good veteran relievers is a solid way to improve in a "down" year. So try to find 2-3 Boxbergers, basically. One might even be Brad Boxberger himself. And continue the usual indy league/minor league trawling. There probably is at least one useful reliever among Harris/Erceg/Robinson or the converted starters in AAA. 

 

So that was an approach that focuses more on trying to handle the 2024 roster transition with more of a long-term focus. Now how might it look if the Brewers tried to build on the current roster and improve on it, yet still not massively hurt the future? 

Firstly; Don't trade any major contributors. Tender a contract to Renfroe. Wong too possibly, but that leaves very little payroll room so would necessitate improvements coming via trades mostly. I think the team is better with spending $8m on positions other than 2B, but it's absolutely not clear cut, and relies on the right player being out there. 

Trade for C Sean Murphy from the A's, probably requires one of the OF prospects to build the trade around. Strong defender and one of the better-hitting catchers around. 3 years of team control remaining. 

Find another RHH bat in FA or trade. Doesn't have to be an amazing player, but someone who can hit lefties and play as many positions as possible of 1B/3B/DH/LF/RF, roughly in that order of priority. Can't think of who this would be atm. 

Sign or trade for a SP. Not the top of the market, but someone who could improve the #4 spot, pushing one starter to the 'pen. Could trade a Lauer/Houser to make room, but again, depth matters so I'd rather try to make it work with them on the roster. 

Like with the other approach, spend a few million on a couple of Boxbergers, and trade aggressively for relievers as the deadline as needed.

Doing more than this would require either money that's not in the budget, or giving up some more prospects we don't want to lose. Basically, by delaying the trades of future FAs, the return for them overall will be less. So any kind of win-now approach relies even more on the farm to avoid a future downturn. But to win now without "spending" prospects is hard. Ideally the way is to spend money, not prospects, in 2023. But that requires the money to be there... 

[Brewcrew82]

White Sox are set to let Jose Abreu depart in free agency, per reports. Would provide some much needed BA/OBP and run production capabilities in the middle of the Brewers lineup. And given his age, the cost may not be prohibitive. It's also worth noting how Attanasio and Stearns showed significant interest in Justin Turner a couple of off-seasons ago. Eerily similar players in terms of age and production. 

[MrTPlush]

9 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

White Sox are set to let Jose Abreu depart in free agency, per reports. Would provide some much needed BA/OBP and run production capabilities in the middle of the Brewers lineup. And given his age, the cost may not be prohibitive. It's also worth noting how Attanasio and Stearns showed significant interest in Justin Turner a couple of off-seasons ago. Eerily similar players in terms of age and production. 

The Brewers originally wanted him when he came to the MLB and I think in retrospect they were fairly far into the sweepstakes. I also want to say they had interest at one point when the White Sox could have traded him. 

As far as cost, yes, he is old...but it also means it won't be a long-term commitment. Thus, the yearly average on any deal is going to be pretty darn high. With the DH now across MLB it is going to be really hard to outbid other teams for his services as many teams could easily improve greatly from signing him. 

Milwaukee is darn close to the Chicago he has gotten used to in the US though. If he isn't set on trying to ring chase with the best team possible, he could go the Aramis Ramirez route and stay in the Midwest. Could be a rare opportunity we benefit from our less fortunate geographical location. 

[jay87shot]

On 10/9/2022 at 9:05 AM, Lathund said:

I think the 2023 Brewers can go in two different directions (I'm not including "total teardown" as an option, as they've been very clear they're not going to do that. Nor am I seriously considering a true all in that'd necessitate a more complete sell-off after 2023), which is largely based on the fact that Woodruff/Burnes/Adames (And Houser/Lauer) are FAs after 2024. Meaning that you can run most of the team back in 2023 and with some additions have an excellent chance of winning the division, see who you can extend and then deal with the trades after 2023. Or you could start the "retool" now, trade a couple of players for near-MLB ready talent (Like the Chris Archer trade), and still have a chance at the playoffs but one that needs a bit of help with injuries/randomness. 

In all this, I will also assume the payroll will be similar to 2021 and 2022. If ownership is willing to let it go up $10-$20m that opens more options. But I don't think that's likely. 

Firstly about extentions; I don't know why people buy the narrative that Brewers haven't been looking into extending Burnes/Woodruff. They extended Peralta/Ashby, they'll for sure have run similar deals by the others earlier on, and in some other fashion later on as well most likely. And I don't think Burnes saying there hasn't been contract negotiations even contradicts that. They'll always be talking to players' agents, getting a rough idea of what kind of deal Burnes would be looking at. If that's too far off what's realistic for the Brewers, then they might be better off not making an "insulting" offer to begin with. He might not even be all that interested to begin with, we don't know. Or might be interested only at full market value. I bring the contracts up because extending one of them would obviously impact the plans. 

In general though, the division is very winnable. Cardinals will be in the running, they always are, but they're really not as good as they seemed this year. Arenado prior to this year: 118 wRC+. Arenado in 2023: 153 wRC+. Goldschmidt career pre-2023; 141 wRC+. 2023, aged 34, 177 wRC+. Albert Pujols last 10 years 105 wRC+, last 5 84 wRC+. But in 2023, 150 wRC+. Offensive overperformance, one of the least injured teams in the league etc. I think the Brewers and Cardinals were pretty similar on paper, Brewers being a bit better. To take it in "Projection speak", Brewers will win most of the time if you run the 2022 season 10,000 times. But the actual season ended with the Cardinals with like a 70th-80th percentile outcome, while Brewers were more like 40th. This is a long-winded way to say that selling too much would be ill-advised, yet that the division can be won even in a year that combines being a "seller" and a "buyer". 

If the team and Burnes are far apart on a new contract, I'd listen to offers. I'd be very selective and only act if blown away, but a team in win-now mode could pay a *lot* for two years of Burnes. So I would at the very least listen to what could be one of the biggest SP trades in a long time. Naturally, if a Burnes trade happens I'd lean much more towards the earlier retool. If not, slightly more "going for it" makes sense. 

So down to business. A "retool/step back" approach in 2023 would be something like this to me; 
If he can't be extended, trade Burnes for the right offer, including major-league ready talent ideally including a starter. Trade one of Houser/Lauer. Sound out the market for exercising Wong's option and trading him, if there isn't one then decline it. Keep Renfroe; this team got absolutely killed by lefties and he's one of the few who hit them well. Give plenty of time to the OF prospects as well as Turang and Feliciano. Spend every penny saved on Hader/Burnes/Wong/Cutch/Cain/Narvaez/Houser on the best 1-year FAs you can, mainly at C/corner RHH bat/setup man/starter. Perhaps trade some lesser prospects for fringe/blocked MLBers with some upside. Try to focus on starter depth. So in other words, you plan to get more from the DH/CF/LF/C spots via the rookies and 1-2 short-term signings like 2019 Moose or 2022 Drury outperforming Cain/Cutch/Narvaez/Davis. Count on staying even or even improving a little (As I think progression is more likely than regression for that group overall) at 1B/2B/3B/SS/RF with staying pat other than Turang instead of Wong and perhaps a RHH corner bat added. A starting rotation without Burnes will naturally be weaker no matter how you slice it. Getting more out of the 4th-7th spots via focusing on depth can make up for some of it. Better defense and better luck with injuries can have a big impact too, but injuries could always end up even worse instead so not something to count on. For the bullpen, we have one of the best relievers in the game in Williams still. Bush had an excellent season before coming here, so I think he'll recover. Cousins/Topa/Milner/Strzelecki are all solid and mostly optionable middle relievers. I normally don't think spending on relievers is a smart move, but spending a few million on a couple of 1-year deals for good veteran relievers is a solid way to improve in a "down" year. So try to find 2-3 Boxbergers, basically. One might even be Brad Boxberger himself. And continue the usual indy league/minor league trawling. There probably is at least one useful reliever among Harris/Erceg/Robinson or the converted starters in AAA. 

 

So that was an approach that focuses more on trying to handle the 2024 roster transition with more of a long-term focus. Now how might it look if the Brewers tried to build on the current roster and improve on it, yet still not massively hurt the future? 

Firstly; Don't trade any major contributors. Tender a contract to Renfroe. Wong too possibly, but that leaves very little payroll room so would necessitate improvements coming via trades mostly. I think the team is better with spending $8m on positions other than 2B, but it's absolutely not clear cut, and relies on the right player being out there. 

Trade for C Sean Murphy from the A's, probably requires one of the OF prospects to build the trade around. Strong defender and one of the better-hitting catchers around. 3 years of team control remaining. 

Find another RHH bat in FA or trade. Doesn't have to be an amazing player, but someone who can hit lefties and play as many positions as possible of 1B/3B/DH/LF/RF, roughly in that order of priority. Can't think of who this would be atm. 

Sign or trade for a SP. Not the top of the market, but someone who could improve the #4 spot, pushing one starter to the 'pen. Could trade a Lauer/Houser to make room, but again, depth matters so I'd rather try to make it work with them on the roster. 

Like with the other approach, spend a few million on a couple of Boxbergers, and trade aggressively for relievers as the deadline as needed.

Doing more than this would require either money that's not in the budget, or giving up some more prospects we don't want to lose. Basically, by delaying the trades of future FAs, the return for them overall will be less. So any kind of win-now approach relies even more on the farm to avoid a future downturn. But to win now without "spending" prospects is hard. Ideally the way is to spend money, not prospects, in 2023. But that requires the money to be there... 

I would kind of like a option where we re-tool and can go for it potentially. I also like the Sean Murphy idea, I know his price was high at the deadline but I could see something working well, maybe even throwing in a couple of roster bubble type to the A's say Mitchell/Riuz, Small, and Keston.

I would re-tool and in the process cut salary, leaving room for a trade deadline splash or two. That way we can shift a bunch of different ways depending on how well some young guys play.

[MoreTrife]

1. I'm not plugged in, why would the A's consider trading Sean Murphy? Is he behind someone in depth chart?

2. Is there any precedent for trading a Cy Young winner with two years of control left? What was the return?

[sveumrules]

9 minutes ago, MoreTrife said:

1. I'm not plugged in, why would the A's consider trading Sean Murphy? Is he behind someone in depth chart?

2. Is there any precedent for trading a Cy Young winner with two years of control left? What was the return?

Murphy is about to enter Arby so he's gonna start costing money, A's are cheap. They have Langeliers (top prospect from ATL in the Olson trade) who spent all year in AAA with a taste of MLB at the end of the season plus their top prospect Tyler Soderstrom played predominantly C between AA/AAA last year. They have the depth and aren't set to compete any time soon, so cash in now.

Not an exact comp, but the last big Ace traded with multiple years of control I remember was Chris Sale. He had 3/38 left on his extension before being dealt for Moncada (ranked between #2-5) and Kopech (ranked between #16-36) as the headliners.

[sveumrules]

Building out on the Sale comparison a little bit...

Burnes 2020-22
428 IP | 145 K%+ | 74 BB%+ | 59 HR9+ | 63 ERA- | 58 FIP- | 14.4 rWAR | 14.0 fWAR

Sale 2015-16 pre-trade
435 IP | 141 K%+ | 64 BB%+ | 91 HR9+ | 83 ERA- | 74 FIP- | 9.4 rWAR | 10.9 fWAR

Corbin outpitched Chris by a considerable degree, the advantages Sale had were an extra year of control and a longer track record of success.

At the same time Sale had racked up 1110 MLB IPs before being traded after his age 27 season. Burnes is only at 515 IPs after his age 27 season, so maybe that is actually advantage Burnes too. Less wear & tear on what appears to be more a traditional workhorse SP frame. 

[wibadgers23]

1 hour ago, sveumrules said:

Building out on the Sale comparison a little bit...

Burnes 2020-22
428 IP | 145 K%+ | 74 BB%+ | 59 HR9+ | 63 ERA- | 58 FIP- | 14.4 rWAR | 14.0 fWAR

Sale 2015-16 pre-trade
435 IP | 141 K%+ | 64 BB%+ | 91 HR9+ | 83 ERA- | 74 FIP- | 9.4 rWAR | 10.9 fWAR

Corbin outpitched Chris by a considerable degree, the advantages Sale had were an extra year of control and a longer track record of success.

At the same time Sale had racked up 1110 MLB IPs before being traded after his age 27 season. Burnes is only at 515 IPs after his age 27 season, so maybe that is actually advantage Burnes too. Less wear & tear on what appears to be more a traditional workhorse SP frame. 

It's going to be fascinating to see what they end up doing with Burnes this offseason.  I've really gone back and forth on whether they should trade him this offseason and get maximum value or wait a bit and try to make one last run before you have to unload him.  I think they'll hold onto him and either trade him during the deadline if we're struggling or next offseason.  Either way, it's going to be painful having to trade a guy like Burnes.

[jay87shot]

8 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Murphy is about to enter Arby so he's gonna start costing money, A's are cheap. They have Langeliers (top prospect from ATL in the Olson trade) who spent all year in AAA with a taste of MLB at the end of the season plus their top prospect Tyler Soderstrom played predominantly C between AA/AAA last year. They have the depth and aren't set to compete any time soon, so cash in now.

Not an exact comp, but the last big Ace traded with multiple years of control I remember was Chris Sale. He had 3/38 left on his extension before being dealt for Moncada (ranked between #2-5) and Kopech (ranked between #16-36) as the headliners.

The Sale trade is pretty good, Chris Archer could be close as well (I think he had 3 years and an option). Others of note could include Shelby Miller, Cole Hamels, Mike Clevinger,and maybe a Cliff Lee trade.

Would anyone go for a deal like the Indians got from San Diego for Mike Clevenger where the Indians got like 6 prospects. 4 were pretty good players or prospects and 2 were decent. No top 50 talent but an overall deep package.

Say the Yankees offered Austin Wells, Trey Sweeney, Clayton Beeter, Clarke Schmidt, Deivi Garcia, and Brandon Lockridge for Burnes. That would be extremely tempting sans a can't miss prospect, however all 6 of those guys would have a chance to be valuable.

I am sure it wouldn't be to hard to find more interesting offers as well.

[wibadgers23]

24 minutes ago, jay87shot said:

The Sale trade is pretty good, Chris Archer could be close as well (I think he had 3 years and an option). Others of note could include Shelby Miller, Cole Hamels, Mike Clevinger,and maybe a Cliff Lee trade.

Would anyone go for a deal like the Indians got from San Diego for Mike Clevenger where the Indians got like 6 prospects. 4 were pretty good players or prospects and 2 were decent. No top 50 talent but an overall deep package.

Say the Yankees offered Austin Wells, Trey Sweeney, Clayton Beeter, Clarke Schmidt, Deivi Garcia, and Brandon Lockridge for Burnes. That would be extremely tempting sans a can't miss prospect, however all 6 of those guys would have a chance to be valuable.

I am sure it wouldn't be to hard to find more interesting offers as well.

I like what you're thinking but I'd be more inclined to do that with Woodruff, not Burnes.  I want high-end talent back for Burnes.

[Jopal78]

20 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Murphy is about to enter Arby so he's gonna start costing money, A's are cheap. They have Langeliers (top prospect from ATL in the Olson trade) who spent all year in AAA with a taste of MLB at the end of the season plus their top prospect Tyler Soderstrom played predominantly C between AA/AAA last year. They have the depth and aren't set to compete any time soon, so cash in now.

 

However, because the A's have organizational depth does not mean they have to trade Sean Murphy. Further, over half the teams in the league would want to add a 3.5 WAR catcher with three years of control remaining, so demand would be brisk.

Would you trade Robert Gasser for Sean Murphy? Sal Frelick for Sean Murphy? That's probably what the A's would be looking for--premium major league ready talent. 

[BallFour]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

However, because the A's have organizational depth does not mean they have to trade Sean Murphy. Further, over half the teams in the league would want to add a 3.5 WAR catcher with three years of control remaining, so demand would be brisk.

Would you trade Robert Gasser for Sean Murphy? Sal Frelick for Sean Murphy? That's probably what the A's would be looking for--premium major league ready talent. 

Just thinking out loud but probably would have to be prepared to give up two of our top guys not named Chourio, another top 10 prospect, and then another prospect in the teens. It would be a massive haul but for one of the few players that could actually raise the Brewers floor and ceiling in the current window. It might be worth it. The problem at catcher is we probably will be competing with the Cardinals for available targets. 

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

5 minutes ago, BallFour said:

Just thinking out loud but probably would have to be prepared to give up two of our top guys not named Chourio, another top 10 prospect, and then another prospect in the teens. It would be a massive haul but for one of the few players that could actually raise the Brewers floor and ceiling in the current window. It might be worth it. The problem at catcher is we probably will be competing with the Cardinals for available targets. 

I am roughly 95% sure that Willson Contreras will be in a Cardinal uniform next year. The fit makes perfect sense, the Cardinals hate the Cubs, so stealing their last good remaining player would be a feather in their cap, and it just seems like a Cardinal thing to do. 

[jay87shot]

19 hours ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

I am roughly 95% sure that Willson Contreras will be in a Cardinal uniform next year. The fit makes perfect sense, the Cardinals hate the Cubs, so stealing their last good remaining player would be a feather in their cap, and it just seems like a Cardinal thing to do. 

This does make tons of sense, however there are a bunch of teams that need catching and not many catchers available. I'd say like 51% he goes to Cards.

21 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

However, because the A's have organizational depth does not mean they have to trade Sean Murphy. Further, over half the teams in the league would want to add a 3.5 WAR catcher with three years of control remaining, so demand would be brisk.

Would you trade Robert Gasser for Sean Murphy? Sal Frelick for Sean Murphy? That's probably what the A's would be looking for--premium major league ready talent. 

I wouldn't trade Frelick, maybe Weimer if there is nothing really attached. The A's would probably take 3 of our secondary prospect for him but my guess is that someone else would offer more.

Say Weimer, Logan Henderson, and Eduardo Garcia or Tyler Black, Gasser, and Justin Jarvis. Probably similarly valued packages but someone will like offer a top 50 and 2 other pieces.