2018 Brewers Discussion - Yelich Signing on Page 45

[JimmyTheKid]

Swarzak to the Mets on a two year $14M deal.

Even though that's a decent sized contract for a guy who's had one good year, I'm actually surprised and a little disappointed the Brewers didn't match that given how nuts the RP market has been.

Guessing we had a comparable offer and he loves living in NYC.

[Turk Nowitzki]

Swarzak to the Mets on a two year $14M deal.

Even though that's a decent sized contract for a guy who's had one good year, I'm actually surprised and a little disappointed the Brewers didn't match that given how nuts the RP market has been.

Guessing we had a comparable offer and he loves living in NYC.

He enthusiastically expressed his desire to return after the season a bit beyond standard athlete speak. So unless he was just lying I have to imagine we declined to meet those financial terms.

[JimmyTheKid]

Even though that's a decent sized contract for a guy who's had one good year, I'm actually surprised and a little disappointed the Brewers didn't match that given how nuts the RP market has been.

Guessing we had a comparable offer and he loves living in NYC.

He enthusiastically expressed his desire to return after the season a bit beyond standard athlete speak. So unless he was just lying I have to imagine we declined to meet those financial terms.

Could very well be the case. I'm just guessing here.

[Turk Nowitzki]

I do respect Stearns for not getting involved in this if he thinks the market is way out of whack. It's still early so we'll see what happens but these teams handing out long term deals for relievers (I wouldnt go over 2 years for any of these guys that have signed so far) just isn't a great policy for us. I just thought Swarzak's deal was one of the least bad ones I've seen.

[coolhandluke121]

I do respect Stearns for not getting involved in this if he thinks the market is way out of whack. It's still early so we'll see what happens but these teams handing out long term deals for relievers (I wouldnt go over 2 years for any of these guys that have signed so far) just isn't a great policy for us. I just thought Swarzak's deal was one of the least bad ones I've seen.

+1

Discipline is the #1 quality I want in management. They're doing the right thing. I'm also thrilled that they tried to sell high on Santana. At least it shows their head is in the right place. Stearns is a tough customer on the talent market and I love it.

That said, I was hoping there would be more decent values out there, but they're better off building from within and continuing to try to unearth hidden gems than participating in this kind of free agency.

[Kerb Hohl]

I agree with you guys and I don't mind not getting Swarzak (though he's a reliever that I do think is worth it).

The only thing I'll say is an analogy to a fantasy auction draft. There are only so many players on the market. "I'm not going to pay $65 for Mike Trout. $55 for Altuve is too much." The question is, are you going to end up getting a bulk of the next tier of player or are you just gonna walk out of the thing with $50 in your fantasy auction payroll?

We'd have a hard time creating serious salary constraints on 2-year deals, so if we want to remain quasi-competitive this year, I hope we don't completely whiff on every possible impact free agent. We won't get a trophy for winning 84 games with a $65 million payroll.

All of that said, plenty of time to work something out and I trust the process.

[ReasonablySober]

Stearns has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to finding cheap talent.

[Kerb Hohl]

Stearns has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to finding cheap talent.

Sure, but at a certain point the entire goal of finding cheap talent is to pay some more expensive players. Not saying it has to be this year, but someday.

[coolhandluke121]

I agree with you guys and I don't mind not getting Swarzak (though he's a reliever that I do think is worth it).

The only thing I'll say is an analogy to a fantasy auction draft. There are only so many players on the market. "I'm not going to pay $65 for Mike Trout. $55 for Altuve is too much." The question is, are you going to end up getting a bulk of the next tier of player or are you just gonna walk out of the thing with $50 in your fantasy auction payroll?

We'd have a hard time creating serious salary constraints on 2-year deals, so if we want to remain quasi-competitive this year, I hope we don't completely whiff on every possible impact free agent. We won't get a trophy for winning 84 games with a $65 million payroll.

All of that said, plenty of time to work something out and I trust the process.

What I've noticed in baseball and basketball is that the "under-the-radar" finds so often outperform the bad contracts that a team is often better off with them regardless of salary, let alone if they cost a fraction of the price. Those guys are in their prime or close to it, as opposed to almost 30 or older. They also have something to prove.

I support going all-in in the right situation. I don't quite see it this offseason. I think there's a great chance Villar is better than Walker, Williams is better than Swarzak, Drake is better than Minor, and Suter is better than Lynn in just a couple years. The fact that they spend much less is just the cherry on top.

What I like about it is not so much the players they're going to have in the immediate future, but the fact that they're sticking to principles that are likely to pay off in the long run. This isn't quite the NBA, where great opportunities are almost guaranteed to come up regularly if you exercise fiscal restraint, but it is still a good policy.

[ReasonablySober]

Stearns has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to finding cheap talent.

Sure, but at a certain point the entire goal of finding cheap talent is to pay some more expensive players. Not saying it has to be this year, but someday.

Sure, but bullpen help isn't where those dollars should be going. Not at Swarzak prices.

[Kerb Hohl]

I agree with you guys and I don't mind not getting Swarzak (though he's a reliever that I do think is worth it).

The only thing I'll say is an analogy to a fantasy auction draft. There are only so many players on the market. "I'm not going to pay $65 for Mike Trout. $55 for Altuve is too much." The question is, are you going to end up getting a bulk of the next tier of player or are you just gonna walk out of the thing with $50 in your fantasy auction payroll?

We'd have a hard time creating serious salary constraints on 2-year deals, so if we want to remain quasi-competitive this year, I hope we don't completely whiff on every possible impact free agent. We won't get a trophy for winning 84 games with a $65 million payroll.

All of that said, plenty of time to work something out and I trust the process.

What I've noticed in baseball and basketball is that the "under-the-radar" finds so often outperform the bad contracts that a team is often better off with them regardless of salary, let alone if they cost a fraction of the price. Those guys are in their prime or close to it, as opposed to almost 30 or older. They also have something to prove.

I support going all-in in the right situation. I don't quite see it this offseason. I think there's a great chance Villar is better than Walker, Williams is better than Swarzak, Drake is better than Minor, and Suter is better than Lynn in just a couple years. The fact that they spend much less is just the cherry on top.

What I like about it is not so much the players they're going to have in the immediate future, but the fact that they're sticking to principles that are likely to pay off in the long run. This isn't quite the NBA, where great opportunities are almost guaranteed to come up regularly if you exercise fiscal restraint, but it is still a good policy.

I don't disagree with a ton of this, but Minor will definitely be better than Drake.

As for the rest of it, we have some $ to spend short-term. I agree that some of these other players could be better down the road, but I think we could have both. Some guys that help now that don't eat into the future.

[Kerb Hohl]

Stearns has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to finding cheap talent.

Sure, but at a certain point the entire goal of finding cheap talent is to pay some more expensive players. Not saying it has to be this year, but someday.

Sure, but bullpen help isn't where those dollars should be going. Not at Swarzak prices.

Where, then? 2B is obvious but I'm not sure they go that route.

Rotation is where they could add another player with Nelson going down, but I have a feeling that you're also in the camp that doesn't want to back up the truck on Darvish, Arrieta, Lynn, Cobb.

[ReasonablySober]

Sure, but at a certain point the entire goal of finding cheap talent is to pay some more expensive players. Not saying it has to be this year, but someday.

Sure, but bullpen help isn't where those dollars should be going. Not at Swarzak prices.

Where, then? 2B is obvious but I'm not sure they go that route.

Rotation is where they could add another player with Nelson going down, but I have a feeling that you're also in the camp that doesn't want to back up the truck on Darvish, Arrieta, Lynn, Cobb.

If the right player isn't around then just don't spend the money. Save it and use it a couple years from now when extensions are explored.

[Kerb Hohl]

Sure, but bullpen help isn't where those dollars should be going. Not at Swarzak prices.

Where, then? 2B is obvious but I'm not sure they go that route.

Rotation is where they could add another player with Nelson going down, but I have a feeling that you're also in the camp that doesn't want to back up the truck on Darvish, Arrieta, Lynn, Cobb.

If the right player isn't around then just don't spend the money. Save it and use it a couple years from now when extensions are explored.

I agree, just saying there's room to spend on short-term guys without affecting anything longterm and Swarzak fit that mold. Plenty of time to find someone else, though.

[ReasonablySober]

Read on Twitter

Good that they weren't willing to go that high.

Read on Twitter

I like our GM.

[MickeyDavis]

Stearns had a number and wouldn't go over it. Good for him. And I agree about "banking" money. Don't spend cash just to spend it. Bank it and then you can go over your normal cap down the road if necessary.

[Kerb Hohl]

Stearns had a number and wouldn't go over it. Good for him. And I agree about "banking" money. Don't spend cash just to spend it. Bank it and then you can go over your normal cap down the road if necessary.

The issue is (and we'll never know this) is how much they can truly do this. I know that the down period of the last few years will help pave the way for a higher normal payroll next year and beyond, but is passing on Swarzak's $14 million a 1:1 ratio of adding $14 million in 2022? Seems like they still have a year-to-year thing where they don't want it to stray too high or too low.

[WeekapaugGroove]

I wouldn't kill them for grabbing a highish money reliever on a 2 year type deal but man relief pitching is such a crap shoot. I feel like predicting success on them is like using a magic 8 ball. Feel like guys go from sub 3 ERA to can't find the strike zone at a drop of the hat or their arms fall off. I don't mind the grab a bunch of guys with good stuff but with issues and hope like hell that some work out approach.

PS - Anyone else having problems with the RealGM App? It hasn't let me log in in a couple of days.

[ReasonablySober]

Stearns had a number and wouldn't go over it. Good for him. And I agree about "banking" money. Don't spend cash just to spend it. Bank it and then you can go over your normal cap down the road if necessary.

The issue is (and we'll never know this) is how much they can truly do this. I know that the down period of the last few years will help pave the way for a higher normal payroll next year and beyond, but is passing on Swarzak's $14 million a 1:1 ratio of adding $14 million in 2022? Seems like they still have a year-to-year thing where they don't want it to stray too high or too low.

Hasn't Mark A specifically said that the low payroll the past couple years would enable them to spend when they're ready to make a splash? I've always been under that assumption because it was coming from him.

[Kerb Hohl]

Stearns had a number and wouldn't go over it. Good for him. And I agree about "banking" money. Don't spend cash just to spend it. Bank it and then you can go over your normal cap down the road if necessary.

The issue is (and we'll never know this) is how much they can truly do this. I know that the down period of the last few years will help pave the way for a higher normal payroll next year and beyond, but is passing on Swarzak's $14 million a 1:1 ratio of adding $14 million in 2022? Seems like they still have a year-to-year thing where they don't want it to stray too high or too low.

Hasn't Mark A specifically said that the low payroll the past couple years would enable them to spend when they're ready to make a splash? I've always been under that assumption because it was coming from him.

Yes, that's what I said in the beginning.

In a general sense, that is true. They may go back up towards $110 million, maybe even $120 for a handful of years after these few years because of that.

I just don't know if the idea that, "don't sign X and Y player for $Z because we can then spend $Z a few years from now" is true if that makes any sense. It doesn't just 100% carry over if that makes any sense.