Why the Brewers Need to Sign Willy Adames to an Extension Now, and What It'll Cost

3 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

We actually don’t really know how he was treated.

We handled all three the same. Two of them decided to avoid arbitration completely and the other decided to test his luck…then lost and then pouted.

You aren’t really wrong about all three almost surely about to be on their way out though. At least with Adames/Woodruff someone can have a pipe dream it is possible to sign them (not me though).

We saw that they stuck to their number, regardless of how small the difference between theirs and Burnes's.  And we saw that they were willing to take whatever hard feelings came as a result.  There was no deference made to accommodating a homegrown star.  I suspect the same will be true for Adames, Woodruff, and everyone else.  Their model is to have one face of the franchise guy and fill in the rest.  I think the market for Woody and Adames will exceed the Brewers' willingness to spend.

Though maybe not.  We're all just speculating..

30 minutes ago, JimH5 said:

Their model is to have one face of the franchise guy and fill in the rest.  I think the market for Woody and Adames will exceed the Brewers' willingness to spend.

Regardless of the Brewers model it doesn't make much financial sense for Burnes, Woodruff and Adames to sign a long term deal right now with the Brewers.  The Brewers would have to pay market rate or close to it for the three.  I don't believe Adames is worth market rate and definitely not so into his later 30's. 

I really like Adames but there is a point where like and his production just don't make sense financially for the team. 

All I know is that watching any of these three guys leave is going to be painful, but it's part of the deal, and the way things are in today's game.  Sad as it is.

Yeah, if I’m running things, and we have a healthy rotation this July, I’m trading Burnes for the best return I can get, which should be more than what Cincinnati got for Castillo.

i’m then holding Woody & Adames for the 4-5 WAR seasons they each get me and the draft-picks, so I can still try to go win a title in ‘23 &’24.

A stud BLR starter & a stud BLR positional from Burnes added to the dynamic positional prospect talent at the ready, should extend the teams contention ability indefinitely.

1 hour ago, SF70 said:

Yeah, if I’m running things, and we have a healthy rotation this July, I’m trading Burnes for the best return I can get, which should be more than what Cincinnati got for Castillo.

i’m then holding Woody & Adames for the 4-5 WAR seasons they each get me and the draft-picks, so I can still try to go win a title in ‘23 &’24.

A stud BLR starter & a stud BLR positional from Burnes added to the dynamic positional prospect talent at the ready, should extend the teams contention ability indefinitely.

 

Whooo boy. I really hope the FO has learned its lesson about subtracting all-star players from 1st place/contending teams at the trade deadline. Sensible in theory, but, in practice, not as easily workable....Not to mention trading Burnes, aka our best player, takes things to a whole new level than trading a slumping reliever. You don't trade a player like Burnes mid-season and still harbor realistic expectations of contending for the playoffs, let alone a title. Not in this NL. 

A trade is forthcoming, no doubt. But it should only come at the trade deadline if we have fallen out of contention; otherwise, this offseason should be the time. 

Not to get too off topic. To those wanting to extend frelick/mitchell/chourio/etc, imagine if we had extended hiura to even a $70-80 million dollar extension before he hit the majors? That would have been very bad. Imagine if Ashby has a Thornburg-esque shoulder problem and is basically toast? It's not like all these deals work out as intended, there's a ton of risk in signing a guy to an extension before he's seen much time at MLB. A ton of reward as well obviously.

1 hour ago, KeithStone53151 said:

It's not like all these deals work out as intended, there's a ton of risk in signing a guy to an extension before he's seen much time at MLB. A ton of reward as well obviously.

It's these types of risks that the Brewers have to take.  Even if the Brewers signed Hiura to something like what Albies or Acuna got that is still a lot lower than what Yelich got or any of the recent free agents or what Adames, Burnes or Woodruff will get.  You have to take some risk and the risk of losing $$$ is far lower with signing these early extensions for players like Chourio, Mitchell, Frelick and others. 

You could pretty much extend all of their top prospects for less than it would cost to sign Burnes alone. 

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Whooo boy. I really hope the FO has learned its lesson about subtracting all-star players from 1st place/contending teams at the trade deadline. Sensible in theory, but, in practice, not as easily workable....Not to mention trading Burnes, aka our best player, takes things to a whole new level than trading a slumping reliever. You don't trade a player like Burnes mid-season and still harbor realistic expectations of contending for the playoffs, let alone a title. Not in this NL. 

A trade is forthcoming, no doubt. But it should only come at the trade deadline if we have fallen out of contention; otherwise, this offseason should be the time. 

That’s where I was at as well, but Burnes’s calculated “tantrum” vs the team after his arby hearing has me now wanting him gone, and the beautiful thing about a deadline trade is the team can pick the best overpay and that should be enough to sustain the playoff contention window and keep the team from having to reload/rebuild.   

This team can still contend for a title without Burnes in ‘23 & ‘24. They have enough SP, post-deadline, headlined by Woodruff/Peralta with Miley/Lauer/Houser/Wilson/Gasser as well.

Holding on to Woodruff & Adames in ‘24, while adding 2 core players from the Burnes trade, and having the financial-flexibility to add a nice FA starter on a 2-5 year deal makes this team stronger in ‘24 than with Burnes. That’s my opinion and I’m going to stick with it.

19 minutes ago, nate82 said:

It's these types of risks that the Brewers have to take.  Even if the Brewers signed Hiura to something like what Albies or Acuna got that is still a lot lower than what Yelich got or any of the recent free agents or what Adames, Burnes or Woodruff will get.  You have to take some risk and the risk of losing $$$ is far lower with signing these early extensions for players like Chourio, Mitchell, Frelick and others. 

With the contracts some of these mega stars are getting with less than 1 year service time, I think the days of signing premium talents to contracts like what Albies got are more or less gone. We can certainly try. I mean, Peralta bit against the advice of his agent and that's already a W even if Peralta's arm falls off tomorrow. Based on Peralta/Ashby, I think it's safe to say the Brewers are having these discussions with players where they deem it appropriate/strategic. But there's high risk, and the player needs to be willing to accept the team friendly deal...some guys like Mookie Betts simply are willing to bet on themselves. But man I never thought Hiura would bust like he seemingly has to this point after that rookie year. Imagine if we had extended Hiura and signed him to like 7/70 and owed something like 55 million over the next 4+ years? Its tough building a competitive roster with half the resources of the big guys, we really can't ever miss on big contracts and have significant dead money on the books and still compete. As soon as that happens, we're back in the days of having Suppan/Wolf/Garza/etc eating 10% of the payroll with poor results.

15 minutes ago, SF70 said:

That’s where I was at as well, but Burnes’s calculated “tantrum” vs the team after his arby hearing has me now wanting him gone, and the beautiful thing about a deadline trade is the team can pick the best overpay and that should be enough to sustain the playoff contention window and keep the team from having to reload/rebuild.   

This team can still contend for a title without Burnes in ‘23 & ‘24. They have enough SP, post-deadline, headlined by Woodruff/Peralta with Miley/Lauer/Houser/Wilson/Gasser as well.

Holding on to Woodruff & Adames in ‘24, while adding 2 core players from the Burnes trade, and having the financial-flexibility to add a nice FA starter on a 2-5 year deal makes this team stronger in ‘24 than with Burnes. That’s my opinion and I’m going to stick with it.

I respect that you have that opinion. But with how strong the NL currently is, I don’t see any way to subtract Burnes from this team and still be a legitimate postseason contender, let a title contender. Corbin is that good and that valuable.

Nor do I see the FO taking on the PR nightmare that would ensue, which would be the Hader fallout x100. 
 

22 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I respect that you have that opinion. But with how strong the NL currently is, I don’t see any way to subtract Burnes from this team and still be a legitimate postseason contender, let a title contender. Corbin is that good and that valuable.

Nor do I see the FO taking on the PR nightmare that would ensue, which would be the Hader fallout x100. 
 

Burnes has made the deadline trade easier, PR-wise, because of how he bashed the team over arbitration. 

I’m of the belief a Burnes trade next offseason won’t net near the return of a deadline trade due to teams desire to trade their best prospects not being there because they can add FA talent instead.

I’m also of the belief this team will contend for a championship in ‘23 & ‘24, provided they have 2 of the big 3 retained for the picks and can get a Burnes return that can improve the team in 2024 and beyond, also allowing for the team to improve the rotation next offseason thru FA.

Not having Burnes post-deadline including playoffs will hurt, but a hopeful healthy Ashby can mitigate somewhat along with a Gasser that should also be ready to rotation later in the year.

A trade-deadline return for Burnes should be franchise altering and add enough high-end controllable talent to make it worth the temporary bad PR from some fans.

There os the issue comparing Hiura extension to extending Mitchell, Wiemer, Chourio, and Frelick  Turang too.  They are all expected to be plus defenders or in Frelick's case he's hovering at 15% k Pct. That protects the investment if the offense doesn't hold up to the defenders and Frelick the defense side. Hiura has always been questioned if he could hold on to 2b defensively.  He's short not ideal for 1b. And the DH wasn't an option yet in 2019.  You gotta figure these guys will provide 2WAR on defense and baserunning alone and the hitting when it's right better than 4WAR.

21 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Burnes has made the deadline trade easier, PR-wise, because of how he bashed the team over arbitration. 

This is not remotely true. A large majority of the fanbase and most of the MLB media have sided with Burnes when it comes to how his arb process was handled. Trading him midseason (barring us being completely out of contention) would be a nightmare scenario when it comes to fan support. 

3 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Whooo boy. I really hope the FO has learned its lesson about subtracting all-star players from 1st place/contending teams at the trade deadline. Sensible in theory, but, in practice, not as easily workable....Not to mention trading Burnes, aka our best player, takes things to a whole new level than trading a slumping reliever. You don't trade a player like Burnes mid-season and still harbor realistic expectations of contending for the playoffs, let alone a title. Not in this NL. 

A trade is forthcoming, no doubt. But it should only come at the trade deadline if we have fallen out of contention; otherwise, this offseason should be the time. 

I know it sounds crazy, but I'm still hoping we trade him before this season gets going...  Trading him at the deadline would be pretty foolish, as you have stated above, but if we want to max out the haul, trading him now, with 2 years left before free agency seems to be the wise thing to do.  If we wait until this off season, and he only has one year left, we won't be getting nearly the haul we would get now.  imo

All it would take is for one of the big time contenders to lose a big arm due to injury in spring training.  Teams would come calling if they need a starter, and that is when it's time to take what we can get in a major haul!

26 minutes ago, TURBO said:

I know it sounds crazy, but I'm still hoping we trade him before this season gets going...  Trading him at the deadline would be pretty foolish, as you have stated above, but if we want to max out the haul, trading him now, with 2 years left before free agency seems to be the wise thing to do.  If we wait until this off season, and he only has one year left, we won't be getting nearly the haul we would get now.  imo

All it would take is for one of the big time contenders to lose a big arm due to injury in spring training.  Teams would come calling if they need a starter, and that is when it's time to take what we can get in a major haul!

I already think it is too late to trade him. If they wanted to trade him this offseason, it should have been done during the winter meetings or shortly after. Doing it right before the season starts would probably deflate the whole team without enough time to come to terms with it before opening day.

59 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Burnes has made the deadline trade easier, PR-wise, because of how he bashed the team over arbitration. 

I’m of the belief a Burnes trade next offseason won’t net near the return of a deadline trade due to teams desire to trade their best prospects not being there because they can add FA talent instead.

I’m also of the belief this team will contend for a championship in ‘23 & ‘24, provided they have 2 of the big 3 retained for the picks and can get a Burnes return that can improve the team in 2024 and beyond, also allowing for the team to improve the rotation next offseason thru FA.

Not having Burnes post-deadline including playoffs will hurt, but a hopeful healthy Ashby can mitigate somewhat along with a Gasser that should also be ready to rotation later in the year.

A trade-deadline return for Burnes should be franchise altering and add enough high-end controllable talent to make it worth the temporary bad PR from some fans.

As @wiguy94points out, you're completely misreading the optics here. Vast majority of the baseball community, including Brewers fans, have sided with Burnes over the team. 

You're right that we'd probably get a bigger return at the deadline. But I don't think it'd be significantly lower, particularly if Burnes performs closer to 2021 and/or wins another Cy Young in the process. 

MAYBE we could make the playoffs without Burnes, but that would require A LOT to go right (Peralta staying healthy and pitching 160-170+ innings, Ashby overcoming the shoulder injury to return in May and pitching significantly better than 2022 as a starter, Lauer repeating his 2021-2022 numbers despite underwhelming peripherals, Miley staying healthy, Houser repeating his 2021 numbers in a swingman role, Gasser adjusting quickly to MLB and performing at an above average level, etc.). Not to mention the bullpen, which is unproven, and the offense, which lacks a true superstar, would probably have to take a step up. But World Series contenders?  I don't see it. 

To consider trading Burnes at the deadline, unless we're out of the playoff race entirely, I would have to see one of: Jordan Walker, Andrew Painter, Grayson Rodriguez, Marcelo Meyer, Jackson Holiday, Bobby Miller, Ricky Tiedemann, Jackson Merrill, etc. 

8 hours ago, JimH5 said:

We saw that they stuck to their number, regardless of how small the difference between theirs and Burnes's.  And we saw that they were willing to take whatever hard feelings came as a result.  There was no deference made to accommodating a homegrown star.  I suspect the same will be true for Adames, Woodruff, and everyone else.  Their model is to have one face of the franchise guy and fill in the rest.  I think the market for Woody and Adames will exceed the Brewers' willingness to spend.

Though maybe not.  We're all just speculating..

That's not how arbitration works...like at all.  And that's also not how the process of the Brewers trying to negotiate a 2023 contract amount with Burns played out either, like at all.  The Brewers offered Burnes a 2 year deal that would have avoided both this year's arbitration and next year's arbitration process, and buy out zero years of free agency.  By the way, the Brewers did that with Prince Fielder when they knew he was destined for free agency also, and Fielder/Boras signed that contract. Burnes' camp stated that 2 yr offer from the Brewers was "pretty poor" - not exactly surprised by that from a guy willing to go to the mat in arby year 2 over about $700K in salary difference on a $10M+ contract and one that has probably been told by everyone in the players association that he should be the pitcher to reset the free agent market in a couple offseasons.

Woodruff is also a homegrown star, and they avoided arbitration this season.  Peralta was essentially a homegrown star and signed a longterm contract extension with the Brewers years ago.  Adames and Woodruff agreed with the Brewers on contract amounts and avoided arbitration - those settled amounts were between what the Brewers and respective players initially proposed in arbitration.  Once the deadline for negotiated arby settlements expired, Burnes 2023 contract was either going to be the amount his camp posted or what the Brewers posted initially, not any amount that was in between while they were negotiating.  Once it goes to arbitration, your side either wins or loses, there's no "let's meet in the middle" anymore.  

Given the fact that I think Burnes was the only player of like 12 possible arbitration cases that actually didn't settle with the Brewers somewhere between the initial proposed amounts, I'd be inclined to think whatever amount the Brewers moved the needle between theirs and Burnes' initial arbitration posting amounts was a reasonable compromise - but that would presume that Burnes and his agent had any intent of moving down from their proposed contract value.

The only speculating going on is people turning quotes that were generalizing the process from a frustrated Burnes 2 days after losing his hearing into what was actually stated by the Brewers' representatives during the hearing.

22 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

As @wiguy94points out, you're completely misreading the optics here. Vast majority of the baseball community, including Brewers fans, have sided with Burnes over the team. 

You're right that we'd probably get a bigger return at the deadline. But I don't think it'd be significantly lower, particularly if Burnes performs closer to 2021 and/or wins another Cy Young in the process. 

MAYBE we could make the playoffs without Burnes, but that would require A LOT to go right (Peralta staying healthy and pitching 160-170+ innings, Ashby overcoming the shoulder injury to return in May and pitching significantly better than 2022 as a starter, Lauer repeating his 2021-2022 numbers despite underwhelming peripherals, Miley staying healthy, Houser repeating his 2021 numbers in a swingman role, Gasser adjusting quickly to MLB and performing at an above average level, etc.). Not to mention the bullpen, which is unproven, and the offense, which lacks a true superstar, would probably have to take a step up. But World Series contenders?  I don't see it. 

To consider trading Burnes at the deadline, unless we're out of the playoff race entirely, I would have to see one of: Jordan Walker, Andrew Painter, Grayson Rodriguez, Marcelo Meyer, Jackson Holiday, Bobby Miller, Ricky Tiedemann, Jackson Merrill, etc. 

Then we might as well hold Burnes for the WAR he provides and the draft-pick because 1 year of control traded next offseason isn’t returning what we would need to give-up his WAR in a season we will still be contending. 

Same with Woody/Adames. Deadline trades or hold.

1 hour ago, wiguy94 said:

This is not remotely true. A large majority of the fanbase and most of the MLB media have sided with Burnes when it comes to how his arb process was handled. Trading him midseason (barring us being completely out of contention) would be a nightmare scenario when it comes to fan support. 

Ok, I reluctantly have to agree with you. Lots of I’ll-informed fans out there, and idiotic media.

No thanks.  We have the replacement waiting.

If you're having to pay basically the full FA type price similar to Swanson then I don't see the rush.  For two years early and with our market you'd need to get a discount to be incentivized to do it, considering his weaknesses.  From his perspective, under two years ago he was floundering in TB looking at never getting a big payday. So he might be the type to be happy to just put 100 mil in the bank when he can.  

For the Burnes trade talk, if you're in 1st you might as well keep him for the value he provides to try and get that elusive title. I think that greatly outweighs what it might cost you in losing prospect value back 3 months later.  I thought the same for Hader, I don't think we'd have gotten drastically less back if they waited two months to trade him.    If they're out of contention or even middling, sure take the best deal at the deadline. But if you're in 1st and things look good, you have to go for the title.  Baltimore sure seems just loaded in prospects and a great match for a trade though. 

Historically the Brewers have actually done a nice job retaining their own star players: Ben Sheets, Yovanni Gallardo, Jenkins, Braun, Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, Lucroy, Carlos Gomez, Yelich, etc. 

I think the landscape and it’s harder to come to an agreement with players on contract extensions than it was years ago, and there are always some players who simply want to exercise their right for free agency after six years (Prince Fielder for example) no matter what. 

49 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Historically the Brewers have actually done a nice job retaining their own star players: Ben Sheets, Yovanni Gallardo, Jenkins, Braun, Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, Lucroy, Carlos Gomez, Yelich, etc. 

I think the landscape and it’s harder to come to an agreement with players on contract extensions than it was years ago, and there are always some players who simply want to exercise their right for free agency after six years (Prince Fielder for example) no matter what. 

I agree completely with this. That said, I don't think the Brewers will extend any of Woodruff, Burnes, or Adames. It seems most think one of Adames/Woodruff will get extended, I just don't. Pure opinion, based on nothing but my opinion. We'll see.

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

Historically the Brewers have actually done a nice job retaining their own star players: Ben Sheets, Yovanni Gallardo, Jenkins, Braun, Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, Lucroy, Carlos Gomez, Yelich, etc. 

I think the landscape and it’s harder to come to an agreement with players on contract extensions than it was years ago, and there are always some players who simply want to exercise their right for free agency after six years (Prince Fielder for example) no matter what. 

Agreed, and I also think the Brewers need to focus on retaining core players through their age 30 season while avoiding paying them going free agent market amounts too many years beyond 30 - that means finding players to extend and buy out a couple free agent seasons most of the time, not trying to extend multiple veterans into their mid and late 30's for huge sums of $$.  And it also means being willing to move on from core players before age starts leading to diminishing returns on the field.

The trio of Burnes, Woodruff, and Adames IMO should not be extension candidates for Milwaukee due to this approach - particularly when they already have 1 veteran player (Yelich) locked into a longterm contract way into his 30s.  Burnes will hit free agency after his age 29 season, and both the length of a free agent contract and annual amount he's going to get elsewhere make zero sense for Milwaukee to even offer.  Woodruff will hit free agency after his age 31 season, so any sort of longterm contract for a pitcher already on the wrong side of 30 makes little sense.  Adames will be 28-29, so that might be an option if he'd accept a 3-4 year contract, but the recent contracts signed by FA shortstops are much longer than that so I don't think that contract framework is a realistic scenario.