Brewers Acquire Bryan Hudson from Dodgers

[tmwiese55]

45 minutes ago, StearnsFTW said:

Obligatory (and annual) it's January 3rd.

I remember 2018 when people were whining about the lack of activity on January 24th.  Then the Brewers traded for Christian Yelich signed Lorenzo Cain on the 25th.

 

Patience, as always.

Cmon, You can't point out the not cheap moves to try and disprove that he's cheap. Because it doesn't matter he's still cheap.

To how does this improve the team, uhhh, we've acquired countless reliever names we've never heard of beforehand in similar moves to this that have greatly helped out our teams the last 6ish years.   Having a strong deep bullpen has been one of their greatest assets in this good run. Of course not all will work out, but moves like this is exactly how its been done and with their track record of targeting BP pieces and the success they've gotten out of them it is hard to believe anyone would question it.  When it comes to finding hitters, whole different discussion, but pitching you just have to give the benefit of the doubt at this point.

[wiguy94]

39 minutes ago, jay87shot said:

6'8 lefty with good strikeout numbers for our 20th pick last year seems like a good deal. He only throws about 92 so maybe a little bit like Angel Perdomo, who was decent with the Pirates last year. 

20th round pick is a bit misleading. Chambers signed for the 6th largest bonus among all of our draft picks last year and the highest of our day 3 picks. Brewers clearly liked him alot to give him $550K with him recovering from TJ.

[Matt]

I think by now the correct reaction to moves like this is, "Cool. Can't wait to see how this castoff is actually awesome in the Brewers pen". 

[homer]

1 hour ago, JefferyLeonard said:

It may not signify they are cheap, but how the hell do moves like this make them better in any way? Isn't that the bottom line? Improving your ball club? How do any of the nothing deals they have done this off season thus far do anything to improve them? They don't. Good thing they don't have any black holes to fill on the roster(like1B and 3B most notably)...oh wait. Sure people can use the "who has signed anyone thus far besides the Dodgers" line, but just because no one else has, doesn't mean the Brewers couldn't have, right? There's a thing called being aggressive...something this FO is lacking, big time.

How do you know it makes them worse? Do you have a crystal ball? Do you know what Hudson's stats will look like come October? That would be cool if you did. Please share if so.

 

Also, they signed an 18 year old to a gigantic contract. Is that not aggressive?

[homer]

Does it seem like there have been hardly any transactions this off-season league-wide?

[Outlander]

It's a minor move that provides another left handed bullpen option. Can't make any conclusions on Burnes or Adames from this transaction, the guy was DFA by the Dodgers so the Brewers grabbed him, not a big deal either way.

[StearnsFTW]

36 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

20th round pick is a bit misleading. Chambers signed for the 6th largest bonus among all of our draft picks last year and the highest of our day 3 picks. Brewers clearly liked him alot to give him $550K with him recovering from TJ.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of giving up Chambers here.

[sveumrules]

7 minutes ago, homer said:

Does it seem like there have been hardly any transactions this off-season league-wide?

Yes, it has been a slow offseason. If I counted right, 29 of MLBTR's Top 50 FAs remain unsigned.

The Cubs, who were allegedly going to sign every big FA after landing Counsell, have signed nobody. 

[wiguy94]

Just now, StearnsFTW said:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of giving up Chambers here.

Given it's the Dodgers, I almost expect Chambers to be pitching in the MLB in half a decade. Hudson looks solid though. His FB looks like a really good pitch and if he can find a secondary to consistently play off the FB then I think there's a good MLB RP in there.

[wibadgers23]

1 minute ago, sveumrules said:

Yes, it has been a slow offseason. If I counted right, 29 of MLBTR's Top 50 FAs remain unsigned.

The Cubs, who were allegedly going to sign every big FA after landing Counsell, have signed nobody. 

I don’t believe the Yankees have signed anyone either.

[sveumrules]

2 minutes ago, StearnsFTW said:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of giving up Chambers here.

Brewers are just moving around risk on the timeline here.

Chambers is intriguing for sure, but as a teenager coming off TJ he is probably a half decade minimum from impacting any MLB team.

Hudson might be a reliever only, but he is ready to potentially impact the MLB team in 2024.

[tmwiese55]

Lorenzo Cain and it ended up badly. 

Should we have paid Grandall that 4-5 deal he got? Which end up bad.  Moustakas, also ended up horrible.  Stupid Mark shouldn't have been so cheap and signed them!!

[JefferyLeonard]

Just now, tmwiese55 said:

Lorenzo Cain and it ended up badly. 

Should we have paid Grandall that 4-5 deal he got? Which end up bad.  Moustakas, also ended up horrible.  Stupid Mark shouldn't have been so cheap and signed them!!

Oh here we go, This is like using the transitory property in sports...Team A, beat team B by xx so team C who beat team A should beat team B by xxx. It's laughable. Just because those guys didn't work out where they signed, is that a guarantee they wouldn't have worked out in Milwaukee? You can surmise that to be the case sure, but no one knows for sure. The thing is, you don't know unless you try, right? Their is no failure if there is no effort to even possibly fail. But...what if they did sign someone to a big deal and they won a world series because of it? Just a thought.

 

[Frisbee Slider]

The worst thing about signing big name players in free agency is you are paying the player for who they used to be and not the value they will likely produce after age 30.

That said, I expect Bryan Hudson will be at pleasant surprise this season.

[tmwiese55]

4 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Oh here we go, This is like using the transitory property in sports...Team A, beat team B by xx so team C who beat team A should beat team B by xxx. It's laughable. Just because those guys didn't work out where they signed, is that a guarantee they wouldn't have worked out in Milwaukee? You can surmise that to be the case sure, but no one knows for sure. The thing is, you don't know unless you try, right? Their is no failure if there is no effort to even possibly fail. But...what if they did sign someone to a big deal and they won a world series because of it? Just a thought.

 

Here we go on you being proven wrong, you literally asked for an example and I gave it to you. And that example was a bad move overall.    Can also go back further to the Suppan/Lohse types too but that was so long ago and they seem to have learned their lesson there.   Moose/Grandall are prime ones someone like you would've been complaining about, and both times the team ended up correct that paying 30 year olds a ton of money as they age is bad business. 

You seem to follow baseball.  Are you really not aware that the vast majority of large long term contracts turn out horribly? 

[Lloyd330]

4 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Oh here we go, This is like using the transitory property in sports...Team A, beat team B by xx so team C who beat team A should beat team B by xxx. It's laughable. Just because those guys didn't work out where they signed, is that a guarantee they wouldn't have worked out in Milwaukee? You can surmise that to be the case sure, but no one knows for sure. The thing is, you don't know unless you try, right? Their is no failure if there is no effort to even possibly fail. But...what if they did sign someone to a big deal and they won a world series because of it? Just a thought.

 

Pure Curiosity, are you under the age of 30? The reason i ask is it sure seems like dont remember the late 90/ early 2000's. 

 

[Trax]

The problem isn't with the owner.  The problem is with MLB as a whole.  Good ol Bud Selig sold the small market teams out to the power union and the big market owners, all for a chance to sit on their lap and collect millions for himself.  The Angels make more money from TV contracts before selling 1 ticket or hot dog than the Brewers do from TV contracts, parking, concessions, ticket sales and anything else they can do.  It is not a fair playing field.  No owner is going to spend to create a loss, but when you have teams like the Yankees and Mets and Dodgers etc etc able to spend 2 times or more because of this disparity you have the mess we have today in MLB.  The NFL has shown the right path with hard caps and parity being the rule of the land.

Blame Bud Selig, not our owner.  Thanks Bud!

[StearnsFTW]

41 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Brewers are just moving around risk on the timeline here.

Chambers is intriguing for sure, but as a teenager coming off TJ he is probably a half decade minimum from impacting any MLB team.

Hudson might be a reliever only, but he is ready to potentially impact the MLB team in 2024.

I get it.  I still don't like it.

[gregmag]

9 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Oh here we go, This is like using the transitory property in sports...Team A, beat team B by xx so team C who beat team A should beat team B by xxx. It's laughable. Just because those guys didn't work out where they signed, is that a guarantee they wouldn't have worked out in Milwaukee? You can surmise that to be the case sure, but no one knows for sure. The thing is, you don't know unless you try, right? Their is no failure if there is no effort to even possibly fail. But...what if they did sign someone to a big deal and they won a world series because of it? Just a thought.

 

Please tell me if I’m misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that (a) if we don’t sign a player, and he then plays badly for the team that does sign him, that information has no value for assessing how he would have played for us, and (b) it’s reasonable to treat any possible signing of any big name / big money player as if that signing will win us a World Series. Neither of those points sounds to me like a reliable way of thinking about opportunities.

[JefferyLeonard]

1 minute ago, tmwiese55 said:

Here we go on you being proven wrong, you literally asked for an example and I gave it to you. And that example was a bad move overall.    Can also go back further to the Suppan/Lohse types too but that was so long ago and they seem to have learned their lesson there.   Moose/Grandall are prime ones someone like you would've been complaining about, and both times the team ended up correct that paying 30 year olds a ton of money as they age is bad business. 

You seem to follow baseball.  Are you really not aware that the vast majority of large long term contracts turn out horribly? 

So, and I'm just asking...You would rather see then role with Monasterio at 3rd and Jake Bauers at 1st then say Matt Chapman at 3rd and Bauers at 1st, or Rhys Hoskins at first and Monasterio at 3rd? Or....OMG Hoskins at first and Chapman at 3rd? What sounds better to you? Be honest. You don't actually believe a corner of Hoskins and Chapman wouldn't out produce Monasterio and Bauers do you? 

I think too often in sports when  big signings don't live up to their contracts per say, fans tend to be critical of that in a vacuum. There's some legitimacy to that. However, if we as fans would just take the blinders off sometimes and realize that "Ok, the guy we signed to a huge deal isn't producing at his normal levels, or what his contract would say he maybe should, he's still outproduced the previous options we had by a significant margin and that's lead to more wins etc". So maybe they are overpaid for what they are giving you on an individual basis, but if they are still significantly better than any other options you had, isn't that still better? Isn't that still improving the team? 

[tmwiese55]

2 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

So, and I'm just asking...You would rather see then role with Monasterio at 3rd and Jake Bauers at 1st then say Matt Chapman at 3rd and Bauers at 1st, or Rhys Hoskins at first and Monasterio at 3rd? Or....OMG Hoskins at first and Chapman at 3rd? What sounds better to you? Be honest. You don't actually believe a corner of Hoskins and Chapman wouldn't out produce Monasterio and Bauers do you? 

I think too often in sports when  big signings don't live up to their contracts per say, fans tend to be critical of that in a vacuum. There's some legitimacy to that. However, if we as fans would just take the blinders off sometimes and realize that "Ok, the guy we signed to a huge deal isn't producing at his normal levels, or what his contract would say he maybe should, he's still outproduced the previous options we had by a significant margin and that's lead to more wins etc". So maybe they are overpaid for what they are giving you on an individual basis, but if they are still significantly better than any other options you had, isn't that still better? Isn't that still improving the team? 

To play this year, sure I'd take those guys.  Thus why our management looks for short term deals though, because 3 years from now those guys are gonna be boat anchors to us. Maybe you should take the blinders off and look at these long term contracts and how they turn out.

Also, I know if you look up FA lists Matt Chapman is ranked highly. Have you actually looked at how mediocre of a hitter he is? I've had him in fantasy, he's not great and worth a megacontract.  Its basically putting someone like Adames at 3B, that's what he is if not worse.   I'm pretty confident Brewers have been trying for Hoskins when he was under the radar a bit and would be ok with giving him a good 2-4 year deal, but I'm doubting the rich teams haven't figured out that now and are going to give him more, which will most likely turn out horribly.

And no, when you have a limited budget adding contracts you want is not improving the team. It will end up killing them 2-3 years from now when the player is worse than a rookie you could bring up and he's eating up 30 mil per year.   It seems you forget there is more to to it than the one year in front of you right now.   To use the past example, if we had Moose/Grandalls contracts on our books the last 4 years we'd have had no chance, thus not improving the team

[sveumrules]

3 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

So, and I'm just asking...You would rather see then role with Monasterio at 3rd and Jake Bauers at 1st then say Matt Chapman at 3rd and Bauers at 1st, or Rhys Hoskins at first and Monasterio at 3rd? Or....OMG Hoskins at first and Chapman at 3rd? What sounds better to you? Be honest. You don't actually believe a corner of Hoskins and Chapman wouldn't out produce Monasterio and Bauers do you? 

From May 1st through the end of the season, Matt Chapman hit 205/298/361 (84 wRC+) with a 29.8% K rate. That kind of offense wouldn't have helped the Brewers very much. His defensive metrics are also in decline over the last couple years compared to earlier in his career...+78 DRS and +48 OAA over his first 4,955 innings at 3B compared to +14 DRS and +5 OAA over his last 2,558 innings at 3B.

If he could be had for say something like 4/80, sure sign me up. If he comes in closer to the 5/120 predicted by FanGraphs or the 6/150 predicted by MLBTR, I think that would be a drastic overpay which would have the potential to limit the Brewers ability to spend during what will hopefully be Chourio's prime years.

[Joseph Zarr]

Interesting moves on the fringes. I'll be very curious to see how this pans out over time. I'll toss in the the obligatory deep cut cliché: "Time will tell." In a vacuum, this move makes quite a bit of sense from the perspective of building up cheap, controllable, possible upside LHP arms in the Triple-A/AAAA/MLB bullpen level. They can't have enough lefties in that genre because, well, they don't have enough lefties in that genre of bullpen arm (especially if we consider Ashby may never recover - it's far from a certainty). Then, if we consider the Chambers TJ, and the manner in which the Brewers have been stacking the farm over the past few years on a consistent basis, this move makes quite a bit of sense to me.

[Thurston Fluff]

29 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Oh here we go, This is like using the transitory property in sports...Team A, beat team B by xx so team C who beat team A should beat team B by xxx. It's laughable. Just because those guys didn't work out where they signed, is that a guarantee they wouldn't have worked out in Milwaukee? You can surmise that to be the case sure, but no one knows for sure. The thing is, you don't know unless you try, right? Their is no failure if there is no effort to even possibly fail. But...what if they did sign someone to a big deal and they won a world series because of it? Just a thought.

 

You asked for examples and were given some. Then you moved the goal posts and attacked the messenger. This is not what this site is about. Please do better.

[Joseph Zarr]

2 hours ago, jay87shot said:

6'8 lefty with good strikeout numbers for our 20th pick last year seems like a good deal. He only throws about 92 so maybe a little bit like Angel Perdomo, who was decent with the Pirates last year. 

Perdomo's 4-seamer averaged 95.3 mph last season and often touched 98 mph. So, they may have similar impact (at least, at the Triple-A level so far it is quite comparable) but I would gather they pitch in very different ways.