Brewers sign Rhys Hoskins

[SeaBass]

25 minutes ago, MNBrew said:

2nd cousin = your parent's 1st cousin's kid.  Your father's 1st cousin is your 1st cousin once removed -- the number of times removed signifying the number of generations apart you are.  My grandfather was an ace on all that stuff.

If all else fails, just quote the spectacular Dark Helmet line from Spaceballs.

Thank you, even as I was answering that I had the feeling I shouldn't be, which I unfortunately ignored lol.

[brewmann04]

I would like one of these Anderson, Chapman,or Turner,or Martinez

[Playing Catch]

8 hours ago, SeaBass said:

First, Yount wore 19 (not saying you don't know that, hopefully you set your buddy straight).

Yeah, the fact the jersey had the wrong number was what made it notable.

[MrTPlush]

It dawned on me when someone mentioned Hoskins in the Burnes thread and being traded.:

I could be pretty dumb in my thinking, but I’m pretty sure Hoskins is virtually untradable outside of a salary dump. Either he isn’t good enough and his second year is accepted by him…so no one will touch him with a 100 foot pole. HOWEVER, even if he is playing great, that second year is a huge roadblock. If a team traded for him and blew out his knee, their 3 month rental turns into a 1.5 year financial disaster.

So if he is playing well, we may be able to find a taker, but due to his ‘24 price (not cheap) and risk of him coming back a second year his value would be basically nothing. So this trade doesn’t have some silver lining if we aren’t competing by trading him for something.

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, MrTPlush said:

It dawned on me when someone mentioned Hoskins in the Burnes thread and being traded.:

I could be pretty dumb in my thinking, but I’m pretty sure Hoskins is virtually untradable outside of a salary dump. Either he isn’t good enough and his second year is accepted by him…so no one will touch him with a 100 foot pole. HOWEVER, even if he is playing great, that second year is a huge roadblock. If a team traded for him and blew out his knee, their 3 month rental turns into a 1.5 year financial disaster.

So if he is playing well, we may be able to find a taker, but due to his ‘24 price (not cheap) and risk of him coming back a second year his value would be basically nothing. So this trade doesn’t have some silver lining if we aren’t competing by trading him for something.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. If Hoskins plays well in ‘24, it means he’s opting out. That’s why Boras coined the term “pillow contract”. If he doesn’t play well, this discussion becomes a  moot point because the Brewers won’t be able to trade him anyway. 
 

Catastrophic injuries for non-pitchers do not happen very often; assuming he plays well in ‘24,  I doubt the risk of another catastrophic injury figures significantly in the calculus if he ultimately becomes available in trade. 

[CheezWizHed]

I agree with Jopal.  The contract (like all contracts) just becomes part of the risk analysis of trading for a player.  Likewise the ability to offer a QO if he declines the 2nd year is a benefit of such a contract.  All aspects are weighed when trade compensation is considered. 

The risk of future injury never makes someone "untradeable" unless they have a huge contract and chronic condition.  Hoskins' knee wouldn't fit that bill. 

[Ignitor 4ever]

If Hoskins is playing well no team is going to shy away from trading for him because of the risk of a catastrophic injury.  That can happen to any player at any time.  Burnes could blow his arm up in spring training and the O's are out two prospects and a draft pick.  Risk is always involved.

It all depends on who needs a bat at 1B come the trade deadline.  A large market team probably is willing to pay more if they think they will get an advantage to re-sign Hoskins in the offseason.  A smaller market trade partner probably is only willing to give up a prospect or two if they know Hoskins is likely a short-term rental.

[sveumrules]

4 minutes ago, Ignitor 4ever said:

If Hoskins is playing well no team is going to shy away from trading for him because of the risk of a catastrophic injury.  That can happen to any player at any time.  Burnes could blow his arm up in spring training and the O's are out two prospects and a draft pick.  Risk is always involved.

It all depends on who needs a bat at 1B come the trade deadline.  A large market team probably is willing to pay more if they think they will get an advantage to re-sign Hoskins in the offseason.  A smaller market trade partner probably is only willing to give up a prospect or two if they know Hoskins is likely a short-term rental.

Welcome to the board.

All things considered, best case scenario for Rhys would probably be to come out raking but have the Brewers be non-competitive and deal him at the deadline.

That way he could opt out without a potential qualifying offer hanging over his head.

If that scenario plays out, have to imagine the Brewers would want to get prospect(s) back that are at least equal in value to the comp pick they’d get with the QO.

[brewcrewdue80]

The contract is built for a mid-season trade. The return will be based on how he looks the last 2-3 weeks. The whole season up to that trade deadline won't matter as you can write off the 1st month or 2 as returning from injury. The latest and greatest version of Hoskins is what to expect moving forward.  You can also look at the timeline nearing deadline of where Black fits, Turang's bat needs to have shown improvement or I option him, and how's Ortiz fitting? Did we trade Adames yet?

[liveforoctober]

2 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

It dawned on me when someone mentioned Hoskins in the Burnes thread and being traded.:

I could be pretty dumb in my thinking, but I’m pretty sure Hoskins is virtually untradable outside of a salary dump. Either he isn’t good enough and his second year is accepted by him…so no one will touch him with a 100 foot pole. HOWEVER, even if he is playing great, that second year is a huge roadblock. If a team traded for him and blew out his knee, their 3 month rental turns into a 1.5 year financial disaster.

So if he is playing well, we may be able to find a taker, but due to his ‘24 price (not cheap) and risk of him coming back a second year his value would be basically nothing. So this trade doesn’t have some silver lining if we aren’t competing by trading him for something.

He was a FA signing.

[CheezWizHed]

1 hour ago, liveforoctober said:

He was a FA signing.

He was talking about the Burnes trade.  

I don't get why people thinking signing Hoskins is suddenly so confusing without Burnes.  With or without Burnes, we had a gap at 1B.  The contract wasn't crazy expensive.  Even if all he does is play for a season and move on... that doesn't mean it was a bad signing.

People complain when we don't spend money; people complain when we do.  I guess the takeaway is that people complain.

[tmwiese55]

Just now, CheezWizHed said:

He was talking about the Burnes trade.  

I don't get why people thinking signing Hoskins is suddenly so confusing without Burnes.  With or without Burnes, we had a gap at 1B.  The contract wasn't crazy expensive.  Even if all he does is play for a season and move on... that doesn't mean it was a bad signing.

People complain when we don't spend money; people complain when we do.  I guess the takeaway is that people complain.

Yea the conjecture would be that we're not 'going for it' since they traded Burnes so why bother.  While of course that's generally true, Brewers management still plans on being competitive and trying to win the division so signing Hoskins still makes sense.  And they're not wrong either with how weak the division is and the expanded WC. 

[markedman5]