I am having such good fun reading about all these new Crew projects players.

I dont like the idea of having players 'entrenched' for the next 3 or 5 or 7 years. For every good entrenchment (Lucroy) there are many bad entrenchments (Lohse, Garza, Hall, Hammonds, Braun?, etc). Think of how happy we are when entrenchments are avoided (Segura).

Surely having control of a player - without entrenchment - for 6.9 years at the MLB level is PLENTY of time to develop that player's replacement. And it gives good fun to watch the minors - for the Brewer horizon.

The arbitration system should be used fully by small market teams to be able to compete. You dont need to pay players on what they may do in the future or what they did in the way, way past. You dont need to pay silly free agent contracts. You simply watch and cheer your guys. IF they do well, they get paid in arbitration. If they do not do well, they do not get paid well or they are released.

I do not fear losing a superstar after 6.9 years. One HAD the player for those years. It is OK to pay that player for his great performance. If you are not competing in the last year of arby, you can 'flip' him mid season. The worst result is you offer him the qualifying offer - and have him one more year. Or you get a sandwich pick after the first round.

The only bad outcome can be: you have so many good to great players you cannot pay them all in any given year. Gee... terrible problem? If the Brewers had 6 or 8 players that were so good they cannot afford, I bet there is a market to trade one or two of them. And it means the year before was some super, playoff year.

I look forward to the minors feeding the MLB. And the MLB lets players go after their years of service. (it almost sounds like the Cardinals way... the 'right way'?)