Where will our Rookies Play in 2023?

[Robocaller]

Some of this will depend on how they rank in the 3 prospect lists. Currently, in the MLB.com list, Chourio, Frelick, and Wiemar are in the top 100. Don't know if that will be updated, B.A. will be out in January, and I don't know when the other one comes out.

So, guess where they'll be.

Chourio: Most likely, Chourio will start in AA and possibly get to AAA before the season is over. There's a remote chance he could get called up after the trade deadline if we have injuries and are still in the playoff race (and if he's raking in AAA) but I don't see it.

Frelick: Let's say he's on at least 2 top 100 lists; He will either break with the ML club, or spend a week or two in AAA before getting promoted. If he's not on 2 lists, he won't be called up before June (super 2). 

Wiemer: Let's say he's on at least 2 top 100 lists; he will either not get called up until after his 2024 rookie status will not be exceeded (expecting him to be a top 100 prospect before the 2024 season), or he will be up on O.D. or within two weeks of the season. If he's not on 2 lists, he will get called up after his 2024 rookie status won't be exceeded; if he doesn't rake in AAA, he might not get called up at all.

Mitchell: Doesn't look like he will make 2 top 100 lists; if not, he'll be on the O.D. roster. He probably still will if he is on two lists, though it's possible they could bring him up late to not have a full year of service at the end of 2023 (but I think that might be as late as late July or early August, so unlikely).

Ruiz: He will be a place-holder for any OF they don't want to burn service time on. He's probably the most likely to get traded (Mitchell is probably next, Frelick is third). Otherwise, he'll be in AAA until needed. He is RHH, so that might help him.

Turang: In the unlikely event he's on 2 lists, he will be in the ML within 2 weeks of the start of the season, if not O.D.  If not on 2 lists, he will be in AAA until June (Super 2).

Feliciano: It all depends on whether he wins a spot on the ML roster in spring training (basically scrutinizing his defensive ability). Otherwise, he'll be in AAA until they need a third catcher.

Perkins: He's a place-holder, like Ruiz. He could be on the O.D. roster solely to delay service time for other players.  Otherwise, he'll be AAAA fodder.

Of course, all promotions would be contingent upon doing well, and having a player who could be moved off the ML roster.

 

 

[MVP2110]

 

[monty57]

I was just thinking about how the new rules will affect the Brewers’ decision on their rookies. The “list makers” are no longer just for fun, they have a lot of responsibility. A prospect’ s future will be seriously affected by who makes it onto the list. If he’s MLB ready and on the lists, he should be on the opening day roster. 
 

Could the Brewers be waiting on the updated lists to come out, as this could be meaningful in deciding some of their guys’ futures. A one-year veteran contract makes more sense if he’d be starting for the first couple months. 

[MrTPlush]

They are not making decisions based on a prospect list ranking. Yes, I get the rule/benefit. We aren’t sacrificing a year of control because some long shot gain IF they win ROY. If said player is so good they win ROY we are going to wish even more we held them back for the control. The gain isn’t anything meaningful to chase.

Either we hold them back for the year of control or we don’t. Whatever we do, it won’t be because of their ranking on prospect lists.

[igor67]

Most first round picks make the majors. I can't locate some of the analysis I had seen on those chances, but even assuming a simple 50% of making it the pick will generate an expected 3 years of team control. And half of those will be pre-arby years. Versus the one extra year that will be an arby year for the player in question. There are additional impacts as well like the chances of building goodwill with the player probably go out the window if you pull an obvious stash you in the minor leagues for a few months move. And goodwill is worth something (possible the chance at one of those great early career extensions for example). The extra pick also generates more draft pool money to play with for signing bonuses which can be an asset as well. It's not an open and shut case but to claim it is trivial value is underselling it quite a bit. If I wasn't close to contending it probably makes sense to play for the extra year of control, but the Brewers are in the near perfect situation to give it a shot. A number of highly rated players who look ready and we are lacking in obviously better options. I'm a big believer in bites of the apple, but trying to bet on what that will look like after Burnes and Woody is murky enough I'd just as soon have the draft pick at that point.

[MrTPlush]

It is pretty trivial when you consider you have to give up that year of control for a pretty unlikely chance of your player winning ROY. You would almost have to force them to change voting rules so only qualified players with enough ABs and Innings were even eligible for the award. Imagine trying to bank on your guy to win ROY just for some guy who was held back for a year of control to win it.

The pick isn’t worth a ton. It’s worth something, but not worth losing a year of a player who is already at the MLB level and a top prospect. I just can’t imagine a team really making it a deciding factor.

 

[Brewcrew82]

5 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

It is pretty trivial when you consider you have to give up that year of control for a pretty unlikely chance of your player winning ROY. You would almost have to force them to change voting rules so only qualified players with enough ABs and Innings were even eligible for the award. Imagine trying to bank on your guy to win ROY just for some guy who was held back for a year of control to win it.

The pick isn’t worth a ton. It’s worth something, but not worth losing a year of a player who is already at the MLB level and a top prospect. I just can’t imagine a team really making it a deciding factor.

 

You get the bonus pick by finishing in the top 3 of the ROY vote, not just by winning it. When you have a player with a 70 grade hit tool like Frelick that is clearly ready for the majors, I do think it becomes a consideration. Maybe not a decisive factor, but a factor nevertheless, especially for a small-market team like the Brewers that needs to draft well to win.  

[MrTPlush]

37 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

You get the bonus pick by finishing in the top 3 of the ROY vote, not just by winning it. When you have a player with a 70 grade hit tool like Frelick that is clearly ready for the majors, I do think it becomes a consideration. Maybe not a decisive factor, but a factor nevertheless, especially for a small-market team like the Brewers that needs to draft well to win.  

Thanks for the correction. I think it is more a bonus than anything. Might be a decent year to chase it as most teams are probably reluctant to see how that really shakes out.

[Robocaller]

15 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

It is pretty trivial when you consider you have to give up that year of control for a pretty unlikely chance of your player winning ROY. You would almost have to force them to change voting rules so only qualified players with enough ABs and Innings were even eligible for the award. Imagine trying to bank on your guy to win ROY just for some guy who was held back for a year of control to win it.

The pick isn’t worth a ton. It’s worth something, but not worth losing a year of a player who is already at the MLB level and a top prospect. I just can’t imagine a team really making it a deciding factor.

You're missing the possibilities.

First, you can wait until a couple weeks into the season to bring a guy up. Then you can demote him at any time, once the guy proves he's not going to be top three for ROY. So you won't use up a year of service unless the guy is performing really well, and in that case it might be worth it both for 2023 and the added pick.

 

[Outlander]

I think that is a good point that just because a guy starts the year in the majors it doesn't"t mean they will make it the whole year. Khris Davis was one that made the opening roster, didn't do well, was sent to the minors and then came back in the summer and was the Brewers best hitter.

However, to your second point if a player is doing really well it is a double edge because they may get a pick but they may regret losing the player a year early.

Maybe seeing all of these contracts given out the Brewers may be willing to offer long term contract earlier to these young players and the extra year doesn't mean much.

Will be interesting how it plays out and what their strategy is.

 

[monty57]

19 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

It is pretty trivial when you consider you have to give up that year of control for a pretty unlikely chance of your player winning ROY. You would almost have to force them to change voting rules so only qualified players with enough ABs and Innings were even eligible for the award. Imagine trying to bank on your guy to win ROY just for some guy who was held back for a year of control to win it.

The pick isn’t worth a ton. It’s worth something, but not worth losing a year of a player who is already at the MLB level and a top prospect. I just can’t imagine a team really making it a deciding factor.

 

I’d counter that. Imagine holding a guy back for a year of control, then having him land in the top tier ROY voting, so you lose that year of service time anyhow. 

[MrTPlush]

3 hours ago, Robocaller said:

You're missing the possibilities.

First, you can wait until a couple weeks into the season to bring a guy up. Then you can demote him at any time, once the guy proves he's not going to be top three for ROY. So you won't use up a year of service unless the guy is performing really well, and in that case it might be worth it both for 2023 and the added pick.

 

No, I’m not missing possibilities. I’m well aware a guy can suck, get demoted, and never see a year of service time. Just because I didn’t outline all 100 outcomes, doesn’t mean I don’t understand they exist.

But there is a lot of room between ROY finisher and getting demoted. Especially when we bank the entire off-season on them and pencil them into a starting spot. Sure he could be fine and we find an excuse to demote him for a few weeks to avoid a year of service time…but you are going to attract a lot of negative attention via the players union. If we don’t legitimately have a guy on our team that can play better, you are kinda stuck with him.

This isn’t comparable to Khris Davis either. If we are risking a year of control, they are in a starting spot. Khris Davis was a backup OFer. He started two games all April. He wasn’t even the main option to begin with. Turang won’t be such an easy send down because you aren’t exactly going to have a great Plan ‘B’ in May. You are kinda stuck with a bench bat starting or a different minor leaguer. It allows quite a lower floor before it makes sense to demote him as the options outside of him are pretty low hanging fruit.

ROY is just a bit fickle to start planning on a guy making the Top 3. A lot of guys held back a few weeks will take spots and there are always random non Top 100 guys putting up surprising years. I just don’t think teams will make decisions really based on it.

[MrTPlush]

32 minutes ago, monty57 said:

I’d counter that. Imagine holding a guy back for a year of control, then having him land in the top tier ROY voting, so you lose that year of service time anyhow. 

I don’t think a team would care, to be honest. You lost out on a draft pick, not the powerball. Any team would be more upset two other rookies didn’t get voted higher.

If you care that much about bonus pool money, plenty of teams get tradable comp picks don’t they? Unless they went away with the new CBA, you could just buy the bonus pool money if you want it that dearly.

[monty57]

30 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:I don’t think a team would care, to be honest. You lost out on a draft pick, not the powerball. Any team would be more upset two other rookies didn’t get voted higher.

If you care that much about bonus pool money, plenty of teams get tradable comp picks don’t they? Unless they went away with the new CBA, you could just buy the bonus pool money if you want it that dearly.

What I’m saying is that the player is granted a full year’s service time, regardless of how much time he spent on the major league roster. The team that was holding him in the minors to save service time would actually get less time out of the player. 

[Devinep]

9 minutes ago, monty57 said:

What I’m saying is that the player is granted a full year’s service time, regardless of how much time he spent on the major league roster. The team that was holding him in the minors to save service time would actually get less time out of the player. 

What’s more likely is someone like Turang or Frelick being decent. In that case, sending them down for a few weeks is obvious manipulation and keeping them up (with unlikely compensation for ROY finalist) burns a year of control.

Plus, it’s becoming a moot point, but it would be more appealing to a FA to come where he’ll get big league playing time. If opening day 3B position is available, you could interest Evan Longoria. If you’re set on going with Turang, you’ll get a Pablo Reyes on a MiLB deal.  

And just like there was ample playing time for both Jace Peterson and Kolten Wong, there could be time for Turang (especially because somebody will Be on the Il by mid season) and another solid starting Infielder.

[Playing Catch]

Maybe the Brewers should just play the best players regardless of service time.

[Devinep]

11 minutes ago, Playing Catch said:

Maybe the Brewers should just play the best players regardless of service time.

Sure, if you think getting a few more weeks of rookie production (as well as not being able to offer a staring gig to free agents) is worth possibly giving up a year of control.

[sveumrules]

18 minutes ago, Playing Catch said:

Maybe the Brewers should just play the best players regardless of service time.

I think they generally have since Stearns and company got here.

Feels like they’ve called guys up once they thought they were ready & don’t recall them really trying to manipulate service time with guys too much.

[wibadgers23]

1 hour ago, Playing Catch said:

Maybe the Brewers should just play the best players regardless of service time.

Yes, please.

[Oxy]

1 hour ago, sveumrules said:

I think they generally have since Stearns and company got here.

Feels like they’ve called guys up once they thought they were ready & don’t recall them really trying to manipulate service time with guys too much.

Really? Hiura was pretty obviously held down.  Nobody else was clearly ready to play or definitely the best option.

[Oxy]

2 hours ago, Playing Catch said:

Maybe the Brewers should just play the best players regardless of service time.

Current service time (years.days):

Woodruff 4.161

Burnes 4.049

Lauer 4.033

Houser 4.010

Tellez 4.004

 

Barring extensions, all of these guys will reach FA at the same time, yet the Brewers basically gain an extra 157 of control for Woodruff relative to Rowdy.  If it is a reasonable thing to do, playing the service time game can be quite beneficial.

[igor67]

What I was finding for playing time numbers indicates there are maybe 30 rookies a year who have a shot at winning the award. Which is to say I could only find 20 rookies last year who got at least 400 ABs. I didn't look specifically at pitchers but the point is try to get a rough idea on the chances of a prospect finishing in the top 3 in voting. And it looks like if you've got a guy with tools and pedigree that you are going to give a chance to, he's got about a 10% chance to land in the top 3. That is consistent with the Brewers having 3 actual winners in team history. If I had more time I could go through the entire voting history to see how many top 3 finishers we've had. Equally important you have not addressed the massive value difference between an extra year of control at arbitration salary. I did a partial look at the ROY and was reminded of Casey Mcgee finishing 5th in voting for the Brewers. I think we'd all trade another draft pick vs. 1 more year of control for him (and he only played 116 games)

[sveumrules]

29 minutes ago, Oxy said:

Really? Hiura was pretty obviously held down.  Nobody else was clearly ready to play or definitely the best option.

Hiura posted a 116 wRC+ at AA to end 2018 and was a horrendous fielder. Starting him at AAA in 2019 was justifiable.

He roped at San Antonio (with the juiced MLB used in AAA that year), but also saw his K% jump up to 26.3% from 18.2% at Biloxi, a pretty big red flag.

Given how his career has gone since then & how unsustainable his 2019 performance has shown to be, I’d say there’s a better case that he was rushed than there is the he was held down too long.

[Robocaller]

15 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

No, I’m not missing possibilities.

Hill-arious.

[Robocaller]

13 hours ago, Playing Catch said:

Maybe the Brewers should just play the best players regardless of service time.

I'm sure they're taking donations so they can do that.