CheezWizHed

Considering Woody missed most of last year and we had to deal with a lot of instability at the tail end of the rotation, adding one of these guys would pretty much put our rotation back on par with last year. And our offense should be much improved from last year... that would make it interesting. No clear better team in the central this year.

Isn't so much about risk adverse. More about opportunity cost. We know the Brewers aren't going to be handing out these contracts to 25% of their rookies... probably not 10% of them. Knowing you are going to be limited to only the top options... where do you focus the attention? I just see Uribe lower on the priority list being a reliever. I would've said the same thing about Burnes/Woody over Hader/Williams, too.

To me the difference is the upside; an ACE starter >> a top closer. And the availability of similar level BP arms compared to the availability of similar level starters. Having said that... the bottom line is about the amount of $$. If you were going to extend Uribe, it would be for less than Mis would get at comparable points in their career - (e.g. I wouldn't extend Mis this year, but wait until he succeeds at AAA and perhaps a few starts at the MLB level. That is comparable to where Uribe would be this year). If cash flow isn't a concern, you extend everyone that will accept a decent contract. But since cash flow is a concern, you have to prioritize. Thus, I'd prioritize Mis over Uribe.

I think highly unproven might be better, IMO. And highly unproven might turn in awful results... or they might be averagish. I guess, I look at 2024 similar to the 2023 Packer season. It is a rebuild and growth year for their SP and offense. If 2024 goes well, the 2025 starting rotation could potentially look like Peralta, Woodruff, Ashby, Hall, Les Mis, and Gasser. That is a pretty exciting SP rotation and depth. Add in a year of development of our young hitters and next year is shaping up nicely. Not that I'm ready to punt on 2024... but a downturn was somewhat in the cards this year with Woo's injury and probable Burnes trade. So I'm happy to watch the youngsters develop this year with low(er) expectations. And if Hall can develop as an SP the same way Love did at QB... well that would be just the cherry on top. 😀

It may seem odd to say, but the extension (or not) of Quero should have nothing to do with Contreras. If the Brewers and Quero find a good price point (again...all about the amount of $$), they should do an extension. I'm not talking about Chourio money. So it doesn't force your hand to play Quero and get rid of Contreras. It doesn't even prevent you from extending Contreras if the $$ is right. If both Quero and Contreras are awesome and they are on team friendly contracts... it is even awesomer! The Brewers are going to have to figure out who to keep and who stays. But the contract adds value at that point to perspective trade partners. If one of them fails and you extended them... well hopefully you did it at a price point you can eat. But we still have one that plays well. Getting good players at the right $$ amounts is always what the Brewers need to focus on.

Sweet! We can finally find out who the fastest refs are!

Upside yes. But upside as a reliever. It just limits the value upside. And we have several pitchers that could be that next BP ace. Perhaps the extension could be next year or just low enough the first year to allow him to stay at AAA. Having Quero and Conteras both isn't all that hard since catchers don't play every day anyway. And you have the DH avilable. But if Quero has an 8 year contract, you could do that a couple years and trade Contreras off. And hey (referring to another comment), Manny Pina is a pretty good floor for Quero. 😀 There is no such thing as being stupid to sign an 8-year deal. He has great upside, but it isn't like he is a lock to be a TOR pitcher. He might have personal reasons to lock it in and not worry about injury or control issues. Every investment like this is a risk v reward analysis for both sides. It isn't stupid if both sides find a point where they both agree the RvR works for both sides.

Like anything and everything... the big variable is $$. Quero's defense makes him a high floor/high ceiling prospect to minimize the risk. Obviously if you do it now, you assume a bit more of a discount. I almost put him in the "next year" so he has a chance (presumably) to make his debut sometime this year and we get a feeling if he is overmatched. But his D is good enough that you could consider it now...but at more of a discount. The longer you wait, the more you know and the less risk, but also the price can go up too. I'm sure signing Contreras to a deal like this would've been cheaper 4 years ago, but now he is pretty well a known commodity and will expect a higher salary.

Is the DT "run stuffer" really useful in a modern 4-3? I'm assuming we switch from 2 gap to 1 gap... that typically requires "smaller" (i.e. 300lb range), faster DTs than the big space eater types (320+lb range). Clark is fine in that mold. I think this fits Wyatt as a run-stopper better than our previous D. Brooks also seems better suited size wise to handle the run in this D. And still have Slaton. If you draft another DT, it almost has to be a high pick that is going to be a pass rush demon. Then assume a trade later from depth because we can't keep 6 players at DT. 5 might be too many. I do see some chatter about Walker moving to WLB which is interesting. McDuffie might be too light for the MLB position though he does take on blocks better than Walker. Might we draft an MLB and have Walker/McD at the OLB positions? Yeah, I never saw BA as a great RB fit in the NFL. He is a beast to take down when moving, but he doesn't seem to make any lateral cuts to a hole. If the hole forms in the general direction he is running, he can bust it for big yards. But if no hole, he rarely creates much. That with being injury prone doesn't bode well for him, IMO. Down around the 4th-5th rounds, sure. I wouldn't take him in the top 100. Repeating the Jones-Williams draft (4th and 5th round RBs) would be fine with me. Draft and develop

I think generally, we want to focus on the high upside for these type of contracts. It is generally a wager on someone reaching their potential. Contreras is pretty much at his peak (maybe small improvements, but not suddenly become a 900 OPS hitter). Wiemer certainly has the high upside as was mentioned. But I think you turn to Misiorowski, Quero, and Hall as the next candidates. Hall and Quero could be considered this year. Misiorowski next year (another year to show the improvements he has made can remain).

That can go for swearing and the like when they are inserted to get a specific rating. As a father that vets movies for his kids, it annoys me to see stuff inserted to be PG13 or R when it was completely unnecessary.

Ouch... I must've blocked that out of my memory as part of Sal's legacy.

Clearly, Sal is going to go on to have a strong career at 3B for the Brewers. Then in his 30s, will finish his career with some so-so seasons with Oakland. Later, he will go on to become Oakland's GM and have some mediocre seasons dealing with a tight budget and making poor 1st round draft picks.

I've been sitting on this thought for a while because it sounds like sour grapes after trading Burnes...but I think he is going to fall short of being a TOR pitcher for the birds. Even for us, I never saw him quite as an "Ace". He had one outstanding, dominant year. But the ones since have been mixed. He will have dominate stretches in a game where he looks like that '21 version of himself. But then it seems like the third time through the order, he becomes very ordinary and hittable. Rarely ever having a "disasterous" outing, but often teetering on the brink. Like someone flipped a switch on him and he looks like a very different pitcher. The last couple years, his ERA has continued to climb while his K rate has fallen. Each year, looking less and less like that '21 version of Burnes. Take away the Brewer's defense behind him, add in the NY East offenses, and I wouldn't be shocked to see him have a 3.5-3.8 ERA by the end of the year. I was a huge early bandwagon guy with Burnes in the minors and stuck with him through his terrible debuts... but I don't see him sustaining his success late in his career either.

Without the blue... I was wondering the same thing. I don't click on threads that don't interest me. I'm not even sure I'd say "divorce"... marriages typically include a vow of "til death do we part", so there is an expectation of that. But this is frankly... changing jobs. I've had 3 of them over 29 years. Sometimes you need something new. I do think the way he went about it was a bit crappy... and going to the Cubs (or Cardinals if he'd have done that) was REALLY crappy. But Favre played for the Vikings and people eventually (reluctantly?) forgave him.

Interesting change from our "norm". Typically when you hear one of our affiliates getting a new ball park it means someone else coming in and we move elsewhere. Nice to actually own the pipeline this time.

I did a sudoku and now I'm so angry!...

Wow. There was so much wrong with that post, I couldn't even begin to unravel it. So, I'll just try to make one singular point. If we were to continue a 3-4, our starts and backups look like this in base defense: DE: Wyatt, Wooden NT: Slaton, Ford DE: Clark, Brooks, OLB: Gary, Ness ILB: Walker, <empty>* ILB: McDuffie, <empty>* OLB: Smith, Cox Going to a 4-3, it looks like this; DE: Gary, Ness DT: Wyatt, Wooden, Ford DT: Clark, Brooks, Slaton DE: Smith, Cox WLB: <empty>*, <empty>* MLB: Walker, <empty>* SLB: McDuffie, <empty>* * Do we have names like Banks or Mosby? Yes, But no one that seriously looks like a contributor. This also assumes Douglas is cut, which we agree on. So the point? The significant hole at LB the shift creates. It doesn't matter if they don't play significant snaps. Nor does it matter if they get a LB/S hybrid like Tariq Carpenter. The point is they still need the bodies. Four of them. Not just one backup. I found it signficant to share that in a draft-focused forum.... because I'll predict it has a big impact on what Gute does in the draft. One. Simple. Point.

Small LBers - Meaning typical 4-3 run and cover OLBs - in the 220-240lb range compared to typical 3-4 OLBers in the 250-280lb range. Unless you like P Smith covering WRs... You think we only need one 4-3 LB? Who exactly do we have for backups? For 3 starting positions, we currently have 2 capable 4-3 LBs on the roster and zero backups. That is why I'm saying we need 4 players. I didn't say we were drafting/signing 4 starters... We need one starter and 3 backups. One is probably coming from the 2-3rd round in the draft. Others could come in later rounds or middle-range FAs. It is a pretty big shift from what we were looking at in a 3-4. Where we maybe needed a backup MLB. Bringing back Wilson just provides a "floor", ST, and some experience. He isn't "needed", but I ascribe to the theory of FA vets to set the "floor" and drafting for the upside. TT would draft of upside, but when he missed, we didn't have a fall-back and often had some horrendous hole somewhere that killed the season. Gute seems to bring in a mix to ensure we don't have rookies falling on their faces and having no other options.

This is what prompted me to look... I was thinking we had too many OLB types (thinking more of a "Tim-Harris" type elephant DE position) and we'd use Wyatt at DE. But that wasn't what I see at 49ers and Jets. I see smaller DEs - basically the same as our OLBs. Nope, not my conclusion. My conclusion was that the players we had on the DL went from 3 starters to 2, so we have plenty of depth. Our OLBs walk right into the DE positions. The massive hole at 4-3 LB is what I'm highlighting. We need 3 starters but only have 2 potential starting players on the roster with really no depth. It wouldn't surprise me to see them sign Wilson, draft two LBs, and grab another FA with some upside. So for the draft, I'd be surprised if they draft a DL very high (unless someone drops in our lap). We already have 5 quality players for 2 spots on the line. And we really need more 4-3 LBs that can cover. Because we basically have no one that is great in coverage at that position. We are short at least one viable starter and three backups. The positive side is that we have less P Smith covering WRs. That happens in 3-4 base with 3DL, 2 OLB and you don't blitz 5. One OLB has to drop into coverage. But now, we need to find those 4-3 LB types (220-230 lbers that run and cover). The conclusion is that we really don't need any more DL and we REALLY need more small LBers.

Not saying we will or won't... just that he would maximize his skills (D and speed) there and minimize his weakness (power).

Well the Brewers would be the team with the most exposure to the depth of his injury...and they signed him. Everyone else is going to get a summary by comparison. The $$ will show more about what the Brewers think about his risk than who did or didn't sign him.

Its easy to find!

Frelick is probably a good fit for OF in SD, however. I can understand why they would want him. He will hit a ton of doubles there and his speed and defense is maximized on their OF.

I started poking around to see what effect the move to a 4-3 (if that is indeed what we do) would have on our roster. For comparison, I looked at the Jets and 49ers defense (which some writers feel is what Hadley will do). And both managed very similar players (from a weight point of view). DE - Unlike the old Fritz Shumur days where DEs were around 300 lbs, the current 4-3 employs players very similar to 3-4 OLBs. 250-270 lbs (with certain understandable athletic exceptions in the 280 range). I was wondering if we were going to have too many OLB types, but our OLBs are right in that range to walk right into that spot. DT - Here again, the FS days of 310+ weights have diminished a bit with all the 4-3 DTs ranging more in the 300 lbs range +/- 5 lbs or so. This probably spells the end to PS stalwart Ford and perhaps NT Slaton? Brooks and Wyatt fit this range nicely. Clark is athletic enough that I'm not worried about him. Wooden actually fits more at the DE range (273) better, but obviously played inside all year, so I doubt that changes. LB - The old school MLB was often in the 240-250 range and the outside LBs around 230-240. Again, that seems to have lightened up a bit... 215-220 lb LBs were fairly common on the roster, with 225-240 being the most common range for all. With the current roster, you could line up McDuffie, Walker, and Douglas pretty easily. Even Wilson (FA) fits that mold pretty well - maybe better for him. But I think you cut Douglas and Wilson isn't that good to bring back as a starter. That leaves the LB position perilously thin. So from a draft perspective: DE: We keep Smith and Cox steps into Enagbare's role while he recovers. Maybe a lower draft pick for depth. DL: Really nothing needed. Late round depth, but very strong rotation right now even if Slaton is cut/traded. LB: Here is where there is a bigger need, IMO. If you keep Douglas, you probably have decent bodies to fill the 3 starters spots. But you don't have any depth and need to acquire 3 backups at least. If Douglas is cut, you need a starter and 3 backups. Not to mention that McDuffie and Douglas are probably more suited for the strong side OLB (or MLB) and we could use someone on the weakside that is excellent in coverage.