Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

danzig6767

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,156

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

News

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by danzig6767

  1. danzig6767
    And he turned down a 17 million dollar QO for this year. That said, it didn't seem like he had any other suitors so at some point he had to bite the bullet and accept the situation he really was in, not what he wanted to be the case.
  2. danzig6767
    Acquiring Cain and Yelich was about improving both the lineup and the outfield defense. Stearns it seems was troubled by the idea of going forward with poor outfield defense in RF and LF, along with a lineup so heavy on strikeout prone hitters. That said, i do think odds are that Stearns made the moves hoping Santana could also be traded for a starter or one could be added in free agency. Keeping Santana though isn't some horrible scenario given he's arguably the best hitter on the roster and has room to get even better since he should be entering his prime. Santana hits for average, power, and gets on base at a high clip.
  3. danzig6767
    If Arrieta won't sign until/unless he gets 150 million or more, then he better start making retirement plans.
  4. danzig6767
    It doesn't have to be about "re-establishing" his value at all. Stearns very well could have contacted Walker/his agents and they were asking for to much, so Stearns then decided for now at least that then he'll just ride with what we have, hoping Villar bounces back and if he does, it will be for pocket change money. Besides Walker likely asking for to much, my guess is Stearns doesn't want to get locked into a multi-year deal for a secondbaseman in case Hiura has a big year in the minors and could be ready to compete the the starting job next season. If Walker wants 2-3 years, well then, good luck finding that contract elsewhere.
  5. danzig6767
    I have no problem with tanking, but i don't buy that this would likely be what ended up happening.
  6. danzig6767
    I think the bigger reasons why the A's back then had the run they did was two fold. 1. It was a time when Beane and the A's were vastly ahead of most teams when it came to using analytics. This allowed him to exploit market inefficiencies and thus land undervalued talent in free agency and trades. Once most of the league also accepted and dove into analytics, Beane's run largely ended. 2. Whether Beane simply had a great eye for pitching, got a little lucky, or a mix of both, he landed Mulder, Hudson, and Zito in a short period of time via he draft, leading to having basically three aces fronting the A's rotation. Beane also had a great eye and i'm sure mixed with analytics way for landing cheap solid 4th/5th starters, along with quality bullpens without a spending a ton. He gets so much credit for bringing about analytics and valuing OBP over batting average, but to me i think it's borderline criminal about how little mention is given to the amazing pitching staffs he put together over quite a long time.
  7. danzig6767
    Todd Zola is a fantasy baseball writer but I definitely found this tweet worth mentioning. Everyone has an opinion but Braun being 3rd best hitter in baseball if all things are equal is fun. Definitely agree with that list. Why? Any list that has Braun ahead of Votto, or Votto 17th isn't worth taking seriously.
  8. danzig6767
    I would also prefer something be done at catcher more than 2nd base. Generally i try avoiding hyperbolic statements, but Vogt just might have the worst arm that i can recall from a Brewers catcher over the last two decades or so. It's like watching Khris Davis try to throw out a guy tagging up from thirdbase. No arm strength and inaccurate.
  9. danzig6767
    The market for both Walker and Lucroy looks weak. If they'll come cheap then maybe, if not, good luck for both trying to get paid on the multi-year big money deals they crave.
  10. danzig6767
    I agree. Where is the market for Walker to get the 3 year big payday he wants? I offer one year and maybe some sort of 2nd year option at most. If he says no, move on and let Walker try to get more elsewhere.
  11. danzig6767
    Yea, i don't agree with this assumption by so many that Braun should have no problem playing at least half way decent defense at first base. Maybe he can end up do so, but i only put the odds of that happening around 50/50. First base is lower on the scale of importance defensively, but it's far from irrelevant if a team has a below average to terrible defender at that position. Mix in that Braun no longer is the offensive force that he used to be, having a below average to bad defensive player at first who only hits at say an .800-.840ish OPS clip isn't much of an asset to a team trying to win. Sure, it's possible that Braun either hits better than that and/or is better defensively than i'd expect, but he's 34, not 26 and long removed from playing the infield where he was brutal.
  12. danzig6767
    Not as big of a "come down to earth" deal for Martinez to be honest. He gets $25 mil per season these next 2 and if he rakes similarly to last year ... he can drop out of that contract and try to negotiate another 4 or 5 year deal worth the same amount at age 32. Still a good negotiation for Boston though. Seems a reasonable deal for both sides to me.
  13. danzig6767
    His first three months were good 1.015 .975 .827 Makes no sense to just DFA him given it's not like he was going to be super expensive. If this was a pure salary dump, stuff like this is why some people, big market teams, and the players union aren't exactly on board with expanded revenue sharing.
  14. danzig6767
    The thing about Boras is that it really doesn't matter to him if Holland or any one particular player doesn't make bank because Scott has 4 or 5 guys that will get paid. That's where he'll get his money and headlines. He gets to spread out his risk and make outrageous demands for all his clients knowing only a couple will get ridiculous contracts, some will get "fair" contracts, and others will get left picking up the scraps in February. I feel a little bad for those guys who could have gotten modest, multiyear deals but gambled and get the shaft before spring training, but they knew what they were getting into when they signed with Boras. One thing in defense of Boras and all agents really in all pro sports is the agent does work for the athlete. So take Holland for example. Boras may have advised Holland to push for a 4th year, but in the end, Holland had the choice to say no, i'm accepting this offer from Colorado. Same for any athlete. At some point when offers come in, it is up to the player to accept one or not, regardless of the advice an agent gives. Holland rolled the dice that the advice Boras gave was accurate about demanding a 4th year and he looks to have been burned by doing so.
  15. danzig6767
    I agree that it's the main job of an agent to get the most money possible for his players and Boras has been good at this, that's why he gets so many upper level players. Then again, even though Boras generally is effective, he often employs a risky strategy and sometimes his clients get burned by this. Just this offseason, it's been reported that Holland and Boras turned down 3yr/52 million from Colorado because they pushed for a 4th year and the Rockies instead gave that same contract to Wade Davis. Now Holland looks like he may need luck to get half of that 52 million or get stuck taking another one year deal. Gonna be interesting to see how things play out for the rest of his unsigned clients because i don't think anyone really knows right now.
  16. danzig6767
    A steal? Garcia gets 10 million and he hasn't been good since 2015.
  17. danzig6767
    Maybe he will get five years, but at some point if literally zero teams are willing to offer five years at the yearly average he wants, what are Arrieta and Boras gonna do? Sit out the season? Darvish got six years because his stats have been relatively consistent through his time in the majors. Arrieta has red flags which are going to concern every team. I think Arrieta will end up signing with some team at four years and a 5th year being either a team/player option or some sort a vesting option where he can earn a 5th year based on reaching certain criteria.
  18. danzig6767
    If I was a Cubs fan I would think that's a good thing. I think the team that overpays for Harper is going to regret it big time. Depends on what the contract ends up being. Harper will only be 25 though next year while most free agents are nearing 30 or over 30. He's an ideal guy to pay IMO. Harper is athletic, hits for average, hits for power, and walks a ton. In 2015 and 2016, he walked 232 times combined. He'll get 8-10 years and should be good for most of them so long as he has reasonably good health.
  19. danzig6767
    I'm with you in having no interest with Phillips. If his batting average drops at all, he's largely worthless because he treats taking walks like they come with an STD. The guy is 36 and was never good at taking walks, but somehow he's managed to get worse in that regard. In 604 at bats last year, he only drew a pathetic 21 walks. Unless we can get someone like Walker on a reasonable 2yr deal, i'm also fine with giving Villar a chance to bounce back.
  20. danzig6767
    So you'd prefer the teams with the most resources to continue to have a significant advantage and end up with all the best players? The "great" teams that get created by a cap/floor are almost always going to be larger market teams due to them having a significant advantage. I do think there could be more done with revenue sharing, but I don't like the idea of forcing teams to spend on somebody. That's the problem though. Many big market teams bristle at the idea of giving lots of revenue sharing money to multiple small market teams who don't use it on players and instead the millions can often go right into the pockets of tanking small market owners. There is the conundrum. It can make sense for some small market teams to basically tank for 2-3-4 years with small payrolls, but then big market owners paying the revenue sharing dollars complain saying all we are doing is putting money into the pockets of tanking/rebuilding small market owners. No easy solution for that if calls for increased revenue sharing are made. Big market teams will be against it and so will the players.
  21. danzig6767
    I question if the NHL would even want a team in Milwaukee. It's not just our small market size, but also the Bucks being here. Having two sports which play together at roughly the same time could stretch the entertainment dollar here. And if i was the Bucks owners, i wouldn't want another pro team in the area which would siphon ticket money from my team to another one. As it is, the Bucks will struggle to fill the new arena once the newness wears off if they don't win, but add an NHL team to the mix, it's inevitable that some of those casual sports fans will pick spending their money on hockey games instead of the Bucks. Granted, the Bucks owners would be able to charge an NHL team for rent and likely tax ticket sales, but even with that i don't think they'd want the ticket buying competition, the media attention competition, and anyone trying to bring an NHL team here wouldn't want to get gouged by the arena the play in, especially given how hugely important ticket revenues are in a sport lacking major TV deals like the other three big pro sports have.
  22. danzig6767
    You just aren't considering the interest in the sport factor when it comes to the Bucks current owners and when it comes to hockey. They bought the Bucks as much because they were rich guys who loved basketball, so owning an NBA team was a dream of theirs. It wasn't just some financial decision. Same with Attanasio. He's talked often about his deep love for baseball and thus it was a dream to own an MLB team. Sure, there probably are some pro sports owners who bought teams mainly just for financial reasons, but in most cases it is very wealthy guys who love a certain sport and when the opportunity came, they bought a team of the sport they loved. Plus, while the Bucks owners are very rich by regular people standards, they aren't say Paul Allen rich who owns both an NBA and NFL team. Getting together the financing for the 600 million dollar fee isn't chump change, regardless of their wealth and not worth the financial risk for these guys who aren't into hockey. They already own their dream sports franchise, which is also a safer sport given the huge TV deals in the NBA compared to hockey which is more locally driven revenue wise.
  23. danzig6767
    Harris blossoming in Orlando is on Skiles, not Hammond. Skiles refused to play Harris and that lead to Harris being traded.
  24. danzig6767
    I'm sure many pitchers feel this way, but there are also some pitchers who enjoy batting.
  25. danzig6767
    These Bucks owners bought an NBA team not just for an investment, they are also basketball fans. So it's their toy to tinker with. I don't see anything to make me believe that they are also hockey guys. This matters. The NHL is also a more risky financial en devour compared to the NBA which has big national and local TV contracts. If the Milwaukee market didn't warm up to an NHL team, these Bucks owners could lose lots of money and if they aren't highly interested in the sport, why take the financial risk? Besides all of that, the Bucks are owned by multiple guys, not just one super rich owner. Getting each of them on board to try and buy an NHL team is a tougher sell. I don't see it happening even though i'd love it given i'm a big hockey fan.
×
×
  • Create New...