Brewers Acquire Bryan Hudson from Dodgers

[CheeseheadInQC]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The stockpiling of fringe relief arms and the fact the 40-man now sits at 39 with several holes that still need filling.

It's just a weird series of events. I'm sure more moves are coming but we're now into the new year and we still have no real idea where this offseason is going.

I'm not judging, I'm not complaining, it's just... weird. What matters is the roster the team fields on Opening Day but I'm scratching my head a little over how they're going to get there.

I don’t like the trade for reasons stated above, but there are a fair number of soft 40 man spots. If this had been a straight waiver claim I wouldn’t have been surprised at giving him a 40 man spot at all.

[TURBO]

4 hours ago, TURBO said:

 

I should be a little more clear of my intentions when I post this meme.  I post it every time someone says he is cheap, if I could post the meme in blue I would.  It's not saying that I think he is cheap, just my failing attempt at sarcastic humor.

[TURBO]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The stockpiling of fringe relief arms...

 

This is what we typically do every year, or so it seems.

[LouisEly]

5 hours ago, JefferyLeonard said:

My point exactly...how in the hell did that trade do anything to improve the team? Take all the moves together this off season and if anything, you can make the argument they are a bit worse. They certainly aren't better. No amount of 1 year deal signings this off season will change that either. 

So, the Brewers are not allowed to make any trades or sign anyone in the offseason until they sign a big-name free agent.

Did I get that right?

[jerichoholicninja]

Can we just shut this place down until about mid-March? A few turds highjack every thread and have made it unbearable.

[TURBO]

7 minutes ago, jerichoholicninja said:

Can we just shut this place down until about mid-March? A few turds highjack every thread and have made it unbearable.

True, but then again, it's always the same people who argue with them...  

[TURBO]

2 hours ago, TURBO said:

 

 

[LouisEly]

2 hours ago, JefferyLeonard said:

I can give you two right off the top of my head...The 2021 Tampa bay Buccaneers and the 2022 LA Rams...  The Bucks are another example.

1) How about an example from baseball?

B) Those teams/owners can do that because they get revenue sharing from big, national TV contracts.  They can go over the cap because they are still turning a profit due to revenue sharing. 

Each NFL team gets $250M/year in revenue from the national TV contracts.  Makes it easy to go "all-in".

[SF70]

Forgive me for not reading thru all these posts and repeating something said already.

The 40 man roster issue is no biggie. They have 4-5-6 that can be dropped without much or any pain.

This team’s PDS saw a pitcher that can help the team this year for a pitcher that helps the LAD in 4 years. 

Organizational weakness’s getting fixed this offseason and last year with the Urias trade, Houser/TT trade, and now this trade. Minor-league starting pitching depth & LH reliever arms.

We just got our LH reliever, which we need in our bullpen to help balance, and more optionable’s. Looking at his numbers, size, extention, FB spin, etc. has me excited they might have themselves another bullpen weapon.

 

[edfunderburk]

5 hours ago, sveumrules said:

What exactly is perplexing about this move?

Twins fan … What can you expect? 😬

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, jerichoholicninja said:

Can we just shut this place down until about mid-March? A few turds highjack every thread and have made it unbearable.

If people are violating the rules, use the report function.

If you feel a specific user is dragging the forums down, please PM me at any time. 

[patrickgpe]

I’m going to assume that if Arnold is asked about this trade he will say that this is a guy that he and/or his scouting department liked for a while and was happy to get him. Their track record for getting something out of players like this is better than just about anyone else, so I’m fine with this. 

[MNBrew]

Every winter generally see three types of moves re: the major league roster:  1) juicy, impact, everyday- or core-type players (or even better, though not often in the Brewers' case), 2) possibly interesting guys on one edge or the other of the 26-man roster (see: Abraham Toro, etc.), & 3) guys on the fringes of the 40-man.  You have to tend well to all 3 zones over the offseason.

As a Dodgers DFA'd guy, clearly Bryan Hudson is likely a #3 who might end up in the #2 range at some point this year.  Last year I'd guess few of us thought Peguero was the guy who'd have the most impact from the Hunter Renfroe return.  Trevor Megill signing with us definitely didn't move the needle at the time.

Any crystal ball work about fringe 26- or 40-man guys at this time of year is fun, impassioned, and still truly just guessing, however educated/informed.

[wiguy94]

51 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

If people are violating the rules, use the report function.

If you feel a specific user is dragging the forums down, please PM me at any time. 

What are the rules exactly? The mod homer suspended me for 3 days for saying something was a lousy comparison. If those are the rules then at least 5 people commenting in this thread should be getting suspended. So what are the rules?

[JefferyLeonard]

All I'm going to say is this. This is an organization that doesn't seem to care about how poor their hitters are. You never see them do much of anything to try to improve it. Maybe marginally at best. Making moves like this is okay, but have you noticed it's always for Pitchers? If they are going to take chances like this and trade for these fringe guys, I'd like to see it be for hitters for once. How you can ignore one side of the ball so blatantly the way they have is mind boggling. It seems like their strategy is to keep trotting the same guys(or sign some fringe guys) and HOPE they turn it around. How has that worked out for them? 

What are they going to do when Burnes is finally gone and they don't have the pitching to fall back on like they used to? 

[Hooker78]

6 hours 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.

 

Small market teams can’t afford to just take large money risks whenever they get the itch, because if it fail’s they don’t have the ability to just pony up for another roll of the dice. And to use “butwhatif”  hypotheticals is just silly. But you do it because thats all you have. You don’t give a real blueprint to success, offer any “big money” moves that you know absolutely wins them a World Series. Just hypotheticals so you can complain about the team not doing it the way you would…even though you don’t even know how you would or could do it better. 
 

As for this move, it seems pretty obvious why it would be done and how it makes the team better now. Get immediate LH relief help for a guy 5-6yrs away (assuming he makes it to the big leagues at all). Moves like this are how the Brewers built an extremely good bullpen, while not paying relievers $6-$10 million a year, which simply doesn’t fit this teams philosophy of budget construction. But paying that money to a reliever that doesn’t pan out absolutely keeps them from making other aggressive moves…like signing a Yelich or Churio type contract. It’s like you want them to play poker just stupidly making every call no matter the cards they’re dealt. That’s a sure fire way to lose far more than you win. And if you haven’t noticed, the Brewers have done the exact opposite the past decade. Maybe you should find a new team to “root” for. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

What are they going to do when Burnes is finally gone and they don't have the pitching to fall back on like they used to? 

Probably just insert more young starters from their organization into the MLB rotation that cost about $600K per season for a few years instead of $30M+, similar to what the Brewers did 5-7 years ago with Peralta, Woodruff, and Burnes (none of which were ever premier can't-miss TOR prospects...in fact Burnes was arguably the worst pitcher in baseball in 2019 as a starter).

The current organizational model gets it right way more than it gets it wrong with pitching, so they've earned trust with regard to continued development of pitching....and if you'd look in the mid to upper minor league levels right now there are a couple guys who could slide into MLB rotation roles over the next 1-2 seasons, starting with Gasser.

The Brewers are obviously banking on offensive improvement from some of their young OFs in 2024, and the offseason is far from over that they could bolster corner IF offensive production before Spring Training, too.  Most of the veteran garbage that gobbled up a bunch of DH, 1B, and 3B at bats last season is no longer on the roster, so to say the Brewers aren't actively looking to upgrade those roster spots is wrong even if no other additions are made.

[JefferyLeonard]

2 minutes ago, Hooker78 said:

Small market teams can’t afford to just take large money risks whenever they get the itch, because if it fail’s they don’t have the ability to just pony up for another roll of the dice. And to use “butwhatif”  hypotheticals is just silly. But you do it because thats all you have. You don’t give a real blueprint to success, offer any “big money” moves that you know absolutely wins them a World Series. Just hypotheticals so you can complain about the team not doing it the way you would…even though you don’t even know how you would or could do it better. 
 

As for this move, it seems pretty obvious why it would be done and how it makes the team better now. Get immediate LH relief help for a guy 5-6yrs away (assuming he makes it to the big leagues at all). Moves like this are how the Brewers built an extremely good bullpen, while not paying relievers $6-$10 million a year, which simply doesn’t fit this teams philosophy of budget construction. But paying that money to a reliever that doesn’t pan out absolutely keeps them from making other aggressive moves…like signing a Yelich or Churio type contract. It’s like you want them to play poker just stupidly making every call no matter the cards they’re dealt. That’s a sure fire way to lose far more than you win. And if you haven’t noticed, the Brewers have done the exact opposite the past decade. Maybe you should find a new team to “root” for. 

I have already said a few times what I would do this off season. I said i would go "all in" for Hoskins and Chapman. There isn't an honest person anywhere that could say those moves wouldn't make them better immediately. I also don't think those deals would/should be outrageous. I remember reading the thread when they traded Taylor and Houser and people insisted that by saving the $7.5 million(or whatever it was) automatically meant another deal HAD to be coming. I guess that was their way of coping with the fact that it was likely a move to shed payroll more than anything else. 

Even if they do end up signing someone with that $7.5 million saved, it won't be used on a Hoskins or Chapman, it will be a fringe bat for 1 year and an option. A guy so cheap that they shouldn't of had to shed the payroll to afford them, especially since said player won't make them significantly better. 

Here's the problem, I hate to say it but it's true...the fans are the problem. As long as all of you that go to several games per year, keep going, keep buying merchandise etc, Mark A has no incentive to spend more because no matter what, the fans are going to show up regardless it seems. The only way he might be inclined to start spending more is if attendance dips, people stop buying merchandise etc. That's just reality.

[markedman5]

17 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

I have already said a few times what I would do this off season. I said i would go "all in" for Hoskins and Chapman. There isn't an honest person anywhere that could say those moves wouldn't make them better immediately. I also don't think those deals would/should be outrageous. I remember reading the thread when they traded Taylor and Houser and people insisted that by saving the $7.5 million(or whatever it was) automatically meant another deal HAD to be coming. I guess that was their way of coping with the fact that it was likely a move to shed payroll more than anything else. 

Even if they do end up signing someone with that $7.5 million saved, it won't be used on a Hoskins or Chapman, it will be a fringe bat for 1 year and an option. A guy so cheap that they shouldn't of had to shed the payroll to afford them, especially since said player won't make them significantly better. 

Here's the problem, I hate to say it but it's true...the fans are the problem. As long as all of you that go to several games per year, keep going, keep buying merchandise etc, Mark A has no incentive to spend more because no matter what, the fans are going to show up regardless it seems. The only way he might be inclined to start spending more is if attendance dips, people stop buying merchandise etc. That's just reality.

Actually that’s not at all how it works…….when businesses have less revenue……they spend less not more…….unless they don’t want to stay in business for long.

 

[Brewcrew82]

1 hour ago, JefferyLeonard said:

All I'm going to say is this. This is an organization that doesn't seem to care about how poor their hitters are. You never see them do much of anything to try to improve it. Maybe marginally at best. Making moves like this is okay, but have you noticed it's always for Pitchers? If they are going to take chances like this and trade for these fringe guys, I'd like to see it be for hitters for once. How you can ignore one side of the ball so blatantly the way they have is mind boggling. It seems like their strategy is to keep trotting the same guys(or sign some fringe guys) and HOPE they turn it around. How has that worked out for them? 

What are they going to do when Burnes is finally gone and they don't have the pitching to fall back on like they used to? 

They literally traded for Oliver Dunn and Jake Bauers earlier this offseason...

[Brock Beauchamp]

12 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

What are the rules exactly? The mod homer suspended me for 3 days for saying something was a lousy comparison. If those are the rules then at least 5 people commenting in this thread should be getting suspended. So what are the rules?

The lengthy community rules can be found here:

 

[folly412]

I prefer Arnold's collection of guys with ERAs over 6 (in limited samples) over his collection of guys recovering from Tommy John.  Especially at a low cost, I don't mind this at all.

[Thurston Fluff]

14 hours ago, JefferyLeonard said:

All I'm going to say is this. This is an organization that doesn't seem to care about how poor their hitters are. You never see them do much of anything to try to improve it. Maybe marginally at best. Making moves like this is okay, but have you noticed it's always for Pitchers? If they are going to take chances like this and trade for these fringe guys, I'd like to see it be for hitters for once. How you can ignore one side of the ball so blatantly the way they have is mind boggling. It seems like their strategy is to keep trotting the same guys(or sign some fringe guys) and HOPE they turn it around. How has that worked out for them? 

What are they going to do when Burnes is finally gone and they don't have the pitching to fall back on like they used to? 

They traded for one of the top offensive catchers in baseball and a former all star outfielder last off season. I fail to see how that is not caring about the offense. One panned out while the other did not but it was still done in an effort to improve the offense. That the one who cost the most money just happened to suck so bad he'll be lucky to get a minor league contract with an invite to camp only shows how signing big money guys is not he panacea you think it is.

[monty57]

13 hours ago, JefferyLeonard said:

I have already said a few times what I would do this off season. I said i would go "all in" for Hoskins and Chapman. There isn't an honest person anywhere that could say those moves wouldn't make them better immediately. I also don't think those deals would/should be outrageous. I remember reading the thread when they traded Taylor and Houser and people insisted that by saving the $7.5 million(or whatever it was) automatically meant another deal HAD to be coming. I guess that was their way of coping with the fact that it was likely a move to shed payroll more than anything else. 

Even if they do end up signing someone with that $7.5 million saved, it won't be used on a Hoskins or Chapman, it will be a fringe bat for 1 year and an option. A guy so cheap that they shouldn't of had to shed the payroll to afford them, especially since said player won't make them significantly better. 

Here's the problem, I hate to say it but it's true...the fans are the problem. As long as all of you that go to several games per year, keep going, keep buying merchandise etc, Mark A has no incentive to spend more because no matter what, the fans are going to show up regardless it seems. The only way he might be inclined to start spending more is if attendance dips, people stop buying merchandise etc. That's just reality.

I've been a proponent of signing Hoskins since I saw MLBtr's prediction that he'd get 2/$36M, which should be in the Brewers' range, especially if they trade Burnes.

How does acquiring Hudson, which is the topic of this thread, in any way effect whether or not they sign Hoskins?

We would all like to know what the Brewers are going to do. Waiting sucks, but getting anxious for the "big moves" shouldn't cloud our judgement on other moves that are made. The valid criticism of this trade that I've seen has been that while the guy we traded was a 20th round pick, it was because he's recovering from surgery. He's a talented kid who might have a bright future.

Conversely, we're getting a guy who should be an upgrade to this year's 'pen, and we have a lot of team control over him. He should make us better at the big league level starting this season.

Being upset because this isn't the big move you're hoping for isn't a valid criticism of this move. If you want to discuss the merits of signing Hoskins, I'm with you and think it would be a great signing, let's just just discuss it in the forums where it belongs.

[torts]