Steve Adams' NL Central comments

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Post Reply
User avatar
mikechamp
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 10132
Joined: April 17 06, 5:05 pm
Location: Southwestern Illinois

Steve Adams' NL Central comments

Post by mikechamp »

These comments came from a chat with MLB Trade Rumors' Steve Adams that occurred on March 14. (If you like him, you can find him on Twitter @Adams_Steve.)

A handful of questions this week. I included 2 bonus Q&As: one about opt-outs and one about starting a fictional baseball team.

The link to the entire chat can be found here: https://live.jotcast.com/chat/chat-with ... 15293.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Will the Brewers be able to keep their core together much longer? Is their window closing after this season?

Steve Adams
Talked about this in my Brewers offseason review and subsequent Brewers chat, but I do generally think the window for this version of the core is closing. They're not going to extend Burnes, Woodruff and perhaps Adames on the $100MM+ deals that they'd command. They all have two years of team control remaining. As the Hader trade shows us, they're not afraid to move a prominent name for MLB-ready young pieces that can be kept for years to come. It's a balance between maintaining a competitive on-field club and also stockpiling enough cheap/controllable talent to contend over the long haul.

I don't think the Brewers would trade those guys if they're up six games at the deadline, but if they're a few games out of the division, yeah, I can see them making a hard call like they did with Hader last year, so long as it means adding immediate MLB help and near-MLB-ready prospects who project as viable big leaguers as soon as 2024.

If they're clearly dominating the division, I'd expect trade talks to become more prevalent next winter, but not at the deadline. They're not trading Corbin Burnes if they're holding a lead in the NL Central and considered a favorite for the postseason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brewers contend? Or will they be "just a bit outside?"

Steve Adams
I can't bet against a team with a rotation that talented, Williams at the back of the 'pen, etc. I also really like some of their young outfielders. I get that fans are kind of down after they traded Renfroe and Wong and didn't spend much in free agency, but I think they're right in the mix for the NL Central.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What's the argument against the Pirates signing Reynolds to an extension? Are the Bucs afraid he'd immediately collapse and they'd be on the hook? I'm not seeing their side of the argument, because most teams are able to get out from under even the worst contracts it seems.

Steve Adams
Their margin for error is a lot slimmer than most other teams, and I don't think it's accurate to say most clubs get out from under their bad contracts. The Padres are still paying Hosmer. Cubs are still paying Heyward. Angels paid Pujols. Etc. Some teams can, but even that usually involved paying part of the contract after the trade (e.g. Mariners and Cano). It's pretty rare a team gets another club to take on the entirety of a bad contract ... I guess the Twins did this with Donaldson, kind of, but they took some arb salary back from the Yankees (Urshela, Sanchez).

Moreover, the Pirates already control Reynolds through his age-30 season. I imagine there's just some wariness that they've already got his best years and an extension buys the decline. For a front office who knows ownership is never going to give them much payroll, the notion of a $20MM+ salary on a player who's probably a corner outfielder by then surely feels risky.

I'd like to see them do it, and I think their offer was predictably refused and kind of laughably weak, but I understand the reasoning if the front office is wary of coming up into Reynolds' range.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Biggest failure to rebuild - Tigers, Royals, or Pirates?

Steve Adams
Pirates' farm is great, they have tons of young guys on the cusp of the majors and their rebuild started later than Detroit's. I don't think they're even in this conversation. Rebuild has gone fairly well since Cherington took things over.

I would lean Tigers here but if you wanted to argue for the Royals, I don't think I'd have a strong counter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Can you explain why teams are willing to do opt outs? If the player ends up not doing well they end up having to pay an inflated salary, and if they do well they get no upside?

Steve Adams
In short: because it's often just the cost of signing that player.

I see this sentiment a lot though, like player opt-outs are some awful thing for teams. And they generally are, don't get me wrong, but teams have had club options for years and years -- and that's the exact same thing but from the team vantage point.
"If you pitch well, we will pick up this club option that is far less than you'd earn on the open market. If you get hurt or you decline, we'll just cut you loose."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve, you have been awarded an expansion franchise and can start with any two current players (1 hitter, 1 pitcher). Who are you starting your build with?

Steve Adams
That's fun, and a question where my answer will probably change if I have more than 15 seconds to think about it, ha. But assuming current contractual status and club control applies, I'll take Julio Rodriguez as my hitter and Shane McClanahan as my pitcher.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Tags:

Post Reply