Brewers sign Rhys Hoskins

[MVP2110]

10 minutes ago, superfly said:

I’m somewhat on the trolls side. Maybe Hoskins wouldn’t come for it, but i hate the 1 year deal too. Give the guy 2 years, a little more money and then the opt out. I’ll cheer for the guy all year and am tickled we signed him, but there’s a good chance we’re going to be right back at it next winter staring at a black hole at 1B again. Sure would be nice to not look at it for a year or two and worry about another hole to fill.

Or it's possible that Black and/or Wilken will take over the 1b spot long term. I wouldn't have minded Hoskins for 2 years but it's very possible they have their 2025 1b already in the organization 

[tmwiese55]

12 minutes ago, superfly said:

I’m somewhat on the trolls side. Maybe Hoskins wouldn’t come for it, but i hate the 1 year deal too. Give the guy 2 years, a little more money and then the opt out. I’ll cheer for the guy all year and am tickled we signed him, but there’s a good chance we’re going to be right back at it next winter staring at a black hole at 1B again. Sure would be nice to not look at it for a year or two and worry about another hole to fill.

Wouldn't surprise me if that's what MKE and several other teams preferred too.   But the player wanted the 1 year so he could get to FA again as young as possible.  It is possible us doing it this way is what got him to sign with us instead of other. OF course we'll never know though.  And from the team's perspective (especially a team like Brewers) its better to be on short side of a contract than the long side. 

[Underachiever]

19 minutes ago, superfly said:

I’m somewhat on the trolls side. Maybe Hoskins wouldn’t come for it, but i hate the 1 year deal too. Give the guy 2 years, a little more money and then the opt out. I’ll cheer for the guy all year and am tickled we signed him, but there’s a good chance we’re going to be right back at it next winter staring at a black hole at 1B again. Sure would be nice to not look at it for a year or two and worry about another hole to fill.

You mentioned it, but what if Hoskins wouldn't have taken a two-year deal? Don't you think he is banking on having a good year and then getting his payday? If he thinks he is a good "prove it" year from a 4/80 contract, then he is going to want the one year opt out. The Brewers' decision at that point is to take the one year or leave it.

He might have no interest in a rebuild. Maybe he wants to mash with the Brewers this year, but have the option to not hang around if they let Burnes, Adames, and Williams go. None of us know. If you believe in the front office, then they will figure it out.

So many moving parts. Would the Brewers have done this if Woodruff was healthy, and they had his salary on the books? 

For the 2024 season, the Brewers are a better team today than they were two days ago, and that's good.

[tmwiese55]

11 minutes ago, Underachiever said:

You mentioned it, but what if Hoskins wouldn't have taken a two-year deal? Don't you think he is banking on having a good year and then getting his payday? If he thinks he is a good "prove it" year from a 4/80 contract, then he is going to want the one year opt out. The Brewers' decision at that point is to take the one year or leave it.

He might have no interest in a rebuild. Maybe he wants to mash with the Brewers this year, but have the option to not hang around if they let Burnes, Adames, and Williams go. None of us know. If you believe in the front office, then they will figure it out.

So many moving parts. Would the Brewers have done this if Woodruff was healthy, and they had his salary on the books? 

For the 2024 season, the Brewers are a better team today than they were two days ago, and that's good.

Good question.  Financially it does create a question for sure.    My best guess is that if Woodruff was healthy it would've increased their chances of doing this and 'going for it'.  I think MKE has been open to this type of short team deal every year but it only worked out with Moose/Grandall, the years since a player and his situation didn't line up.   So my best guess is having Woody would've made it easier to decide on an all in type year and willingness to spend this.  Whereas in the current situation there is a gray area if they should be trading away instead.    But what do I know, watch Burnes get traded a week from now so nothing makes sense.

Spitballing another route in that scenario. If you still had Woodruff then you could trade Burnes and still 'go for it' with this move.  Free Burnes money for this, keep Woodruff to compete, spend the money on Hoskins plus have the prospects from Burnes.  That might've been your best cake/eat it too route but obviously ruined with the injury. 

[nate82]

1 hour ago, superfly said:

I’m somewhat on the trolls side. Maybe Hoskins wouldn’t come for it, but i hate the 1 year deal too. Give the guy 2 years, a little more money and then the opt out. I’ll cheer for the guy all year and am tickled we signed him, but there’s a good chance we’re going to be right back at it next winter staring at a black hole at 1B again. Sure would be nice to not look at it for a year or two and worry about another hole to fill.

Umm it is a 2-year deal.  There is just an opt out option for Hoskins after year 1.  The opt out after year one for short contracts looks to be the standard now.  I believe Conforto and Bell did the same last year.

[sveumrules]

Yeah, Conforto went for a 99 OPS+ and 0.7 WAR, Bell came in at 104 OPS+ and 0.4 WAR.

Unsurprisingly, neither opted out.

That's why it's a better idea to not just give guys 4/80 for no real reason when you can get them for 2/34 and an opt out.

[BrewerFan]

8 hours ago, MVP2110 said:

And that 1st part doesn't bother you at all? I put the troll on ignore and yet when I come to this thread the entire discussion is based around him. It's literally every time we make a move. I'm not mad at the troll, he's getting exactly what he wants, I wish the mods here would try to keep the discussion on track a little more like on other forums I frequent. 

As for the 2nd year opt out, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it is a risk. It is worth noting though their 2025 payroll commitments are slim so even if this year goes poorly and Hoskins doesn't opt out they can likely fit his salary into their payroll pretty easily. 

It's annoying, but frankly...it's also a bit annoying when people say start asking for the Mods to limit the conversation after we've discussed his defensive fit, how fit into the lineup, etc...

It's a Forum about Baseball...sometimes it's going to be stupid, #$% talking. There were several pages about what a great signing and how he rounds out the lineup. Would we sign Santana still and then some speculating that we wouldn't because it was likely part of the deal that he get to play 1B everyday(for his next deal) and we want to keep the DH spot open.

 

Both of those things can exist. Baseball talk and then...laughing at the clown who REALLY has it coming with his constant and never-ending complaining and...it just doesn't seem to me like the Mods need to play referee for that. It feels like calling Mom and Dad. We're adults, it's a forum. I get you don't want it to get too off the rails, but this seems pretty mild.

 

[MVP2110]

6 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

It's annoying, but frankly...it's also a bit annoying when people say start asking for the Mods to limit the conversation after we've discussed his defensive fit, how fit into the lineup, etc...

It's a Forum about Baseball...sometimes it's going to be stupid, #$% talking. There were several pages about what a great signing and how he rounds out the lineup. Would we sign Santana still and then some speculating that we wouldn't because it was likely part of the deal that he get to play 1B everyday(for his next deal) and we want to keep the DH spot open.

 

Both of those things can exist. Baseball talk and then...laughing at the clown who REALLY has it coming with his constant and never-ending complaining and...it just doesn't seem to me like the Mods need to play referee for that. It feels like calling Mom and Dad. We're adults, it's a forum. I get you don't want it to get too off the rails, but this seems pretty mild.

 

No need to discuss this anymore, the mods stepped in and took care of it so that's all I can really ask for. Back to discussing Hoskins

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, Team Canada said:

Someone having an opinion that everyone disagrees with isn't banning material. If everyone would stop putting him on blast there wouldn't be anything to respond to.

Stop feeding the troll.

Again, and then this thread would have been just mostly "yay...we signed the guy we all wanted to."

I find the troll-eating mildly entertaining during what is an otherwise mostly down time on here. 

4 hours ago, homer said:

He was temp banned last night.  We're going to discuss what to do about him long term.

 

I kind of thought my one flap down comment made it obvious but I guess not.

I took the one-flap-down comment to mean he was jumping off the bandwagon.

But...and I'm not a huge fan obviously, but a meeting to discuss what to do? He's not spreading obscene photos, or threatening people or whatever. He's obnoxiously clueless about the Brewers and the finances of baseball and has a very different opinion than most of us. 

I have to say, if this is ban-worthy or worthy of a discussion, read EVERY game thread EVER for ANY sport and everyone's negativity would get them banned. We're a bunch of baseball fans talking about Baseball. And as many have pointed out, there is a IGNORE(not ban) option. Now...I'm gonna go shower as I feel a little dirty having in any way defended "Jeffery."

[MVP2110]

How is his defense? I've seen a couple people say its bad but his numbers don't look awful. I haven't watched a ton of Phillies games so maybe I'm missing something but he can't be as bad as Rowdy was right?

[sveumrules]

Just now, MVP2110 said:

How is his defense? I've seen a couple people say its bad but his numbers don't look awful. I haven't watched a ton of Phillies games so maybe I'm missing something but he can't be as bad as Rowdy was right?

Among 27 players with at least 2,500 innings at 1B since 2017, Hoskins comes in at -7 DRS (22nd) and -11 OAA (20th). He did all that in 4,195 innings.

Rowdy comes in at -13 DRS (24th) and -19 OAA (25th), but he did all that in only 2,969 innings. If you prorate that out to Rhys playing time it would be something like -18 DRS and -27 OAA.

[MVP2110]

3 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Among 27 players with at least 2,500 innings at 1B since 2017, Hoskins comes in at -7 DRS (22nd) and -11 OAA (20th). He did all that in 4,195 innings.

Rowdy comes in at -13 DRS (24th) and -19 OAA (25th), but he did all that in only 2,969 innings. If you prorate that out to Rhys playing time it would be something like -18 DRS and -27 OAA.

Ok so Rhys isn't good but he's a clear step up from Rowdy basically?

[bigred]

7 hours ago, jerichoholicninja said:

Have mods lost the ability or will to ban? I suggested it once before and my post was deleted. This thread just proves it really needs to happen.

Ban people for what? 

[bigred]

4 hours ago, Team Canada said:

Someone having an opinion that everyone disagrees with isn't banning material. If everyone would stop putting him on blast there wouldn't be anything to respond to.

Stop feeding the troll.

In all fairness, simply having a different opinion doesn't mean they're "a troll". 

[superfly]

46 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Umm it is a 2-year deal.  There is just an opt out option for Hoskins after year 1.  The opt out after year one for short contracts looks to be the standard now.  I believe Conforto and Bell did the same last year.

Ummm it’s a 1 year deal. He’s outta here if he plays well, and if he doesn’t play great then maybe he’s here a second. Id guess he’s gone unless he’s absolutely horrible.

[sveumrules]

1 minute ago, MVP2110 said:

Ok so Rhys isn't good but he's a clear step up from Rowdy basically?

Yeah, exactly. Hoskins on average will probably cost you a couple two tree runs in the field over a full season versus Rowdy at closer to like -7 to -10. 

Another big difference between the two is that Hoskins is slow with -7.8 BsR since 2019 (154th of 202 players with at least 1,500 PA), but Rowdy is a whole other level of stationary at -14.8 BsR (184th) over that same stretch.

[homer]

The troll was someone who had been banned before under a different username. 

Any additional suggestions on said topic should be posted in the Issues and Suggestions forum. 

Let's keep this thread about Rhys "Big Fella" Hoskins.

 

[BrewerFan]

33 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Yeah, exactly. Hoskins on average will probably cost you a couple two tree runs in the field over a full season versus Rowdy at closer to like -7 to -10. 

Another big difference between the two is that Hoskins is slow with -7.8 BsR since 2019 (154th of 202 players with at least 1,500 PA), but Rowdy is a whole other level of stationary at -14.8 BsR (184th) over that same stretch.

This is pre-ACL though. 

I'd still like to see Santana brought back...and he should be cheap enough.

[SF70]

5 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

This is pre-ACL though. 

I'd still like to see Santana brought back...and he should be cheap enough.

Has anyone brought-up yet that maybe Boras has assurances from Arnold for Hoskins to play a majority of his time at 1B so he can show teams he’s good to go as a 1B moving-forward?

[MVP2110]

7 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

This is pre-ACL though. 

I'd still like to see Santana brought back...and he should be cheap enough.

If he comes cheap enough maybe but I wouldn't want to guarantee him a starting spot. If he signs to be the 1b then Hoskins goes to DH and Yelich to LF. So essentially Santana takes away ABs from some combination of Frelick, Mitchell, Wiemer and downgrades our OF defense

[StearnsFTW]

22 hours ago, jerichoholicninja said:

The real question is will the team finally give up Gantner's hold on the number 17 and let Hoskins have it?

My god I would hope so.

 

Jim Gantner was decidedly average.

[Fear The Chorizo]

58 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

This is pre-ACL though. 

I'd still like to see Santana brought back...and he should be cheap enough.

Liking that idea alot...I had assumed Hoskins was going to get more guaranteed years and because if it be too expensive for the Brewers, and instead wanted a Santana 1b/SolerDH combo.  If Santana can be signed for just 1 year, then assuming Hoskins opts out the Brewers should be able to deal with the higher payroll for 1 season knowing if they had to they could roll with a much lower 2025 payroll, or if they fall on their face to start this season they could hold what could be the mother of all firesales in July to limit how much of the season the paychecks need to be signed by Mark A for all these guys.

[BrewerFan]

5 hours ago, SF70 said:

Has anyone brought-up yet that maybe Boras has assurances from Arnold for Hoskins to play a majority of his time at 1B so he can show teams he’s good to go as a 1B moving-forward?

Yup. That was brought up already. It's pretty speculative and I think if Hoskins hits, it's not gonna matter much if he does so as the 1B for 70 games and DH for 80 or 1B for most of the games.

Also, this is Scott Boras we're talking about. I doubt the Brewers guaranteed much of anything other than his salary. 

[Lloyd330]

Can we just make a rule that your not allow to post unless you saw a game at County Stadium?

[brewcrewdue80]

Come on already with the details on the contract! 4 days is it since announced?