Thurston Fluff
-
Posts
5,799 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
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 Thurston Fluff
-
Cain to Brewers - 5 years/$80M
Thurston Fluff replied to Warning Track Power's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
Braun's days playing 140 games are over. If we get 120 out of him it's a win. Thames didn't do well in the second half last year. It could have been the league catching up with him but I heard some talk about him wearing down. Aguilar did a nice job pinch hitting and playing sporadically. That is three players who can or should only play four or less times a week. I think there is room for all of them. -
My nickname for Greenville is the thriving metropolis. It really started to grow in the early 2000's. The new growth area looks to be around the Menasha Appleton border going out towards Sherwood and Kaukauna.
-
For me it's not underrating him as much as wondering if the difference between him and what we already had was worth trading 4 prospects for. I would have prefered not to have done this deal but not overly fussed about it either. One thing I do like about this is he is the type of hitter that we don't have a lot of. I'm a fan of having different types of hitters in the lineup and we were missing his type of hit tools.
-
Huh? Care to elaborate? It's nothing against Yelich. It's just not going to be a significant enough improvement over what we have that I don't see the upgrade as significant enough to give up good prospects for. Yelich can play center but reportedly not very well. So his offensive boost there would be offset by his downgrade on D. He isn't replacing Braun so that leaves Santana. I just don't see Santana as so much worse overall than Yelich to give up prime prospects for. So if they want to just get rid of him fine, give them the proverbial bag of balls. If not, there are better ways to marginally improve our roster than trading top 100 prospects and displacing Santana in the process.
-
Christian Yelich
Thurston Fluff replied to Warning Track Power's topic in Transaction Rumors & Proposals
That's why you stockpile them and don't trade them wily nily. If you trade a couple and the ones you have left are the ones who don't pan out you're back at square one. -
We get Yelich they get a bag of balls. Trading anything more than that seems silly to me.
-
Would reducing the number of options go far enough to accomplish that? Reducing the number of options would keep guys in the minors longer. In theory maybe but I don't think it would in practice. Players are brought up because they are needed. That need doesn't change with the number of options a player has. It might keep a few players down but I think the number of players who need to be called up would outnumber that.
-
Would reducing the number of options go far enough to accomplish that?
-
Count me in as someone who heard stories that Ueck isn't the most pleasant person to be around. That might just be due to his being so entrenched that his style has to be catered to or he might just be a curmudgeonly old man. Either way he's earned some amount of deference for all the years he put in. He could have left many times over and stayed through a lot of lean years. That is more than I can say about all the others. No job is perfect and there is always going to be a difficult person to work with.
-
I think teams are taking a closer look at their budgets. Why pay a TOR starter $25 million a year in free agency when you can make do with #2 starters and a killer bullpen? Even if you get an expensive arm ($8 million/year), that still saves $17 million per year for other players. Add to it the number of years they have to pay a top level starter vs relievers and it's a no brainer. Combine that with the player not being as good as late in their careers like they were in the steroid era and paying a lot for a long time is just a stupid thing to do. Boras just isn't keeping up with the times.
-
I saw it last night. Getting as much play as Cleos is pretty big time. Not quite shoe shine boy big, but big nonetheless. I had no idea how the city got its name but sucking up to the inlaws for some cash kind of makes me proud.
-
While I don't like losing players for nothing I don't see how it helps to keep players who don't want to be around. If they ask to leave for a better opportunity and we say no we end up with a Gary Sheffield situation. It would be different if they has some trade value and we let them walk but that really isn't the case with either of these players.
-
Nice, I'll have to check it out. He didn't really interview any of us or even come inside the shop so I thought it was unlikely to be included. We did talk to him outside when they stopped by. He said he wanted to get some footage because he had a job as a gorilla when he was younger. He seemed like a really nice dude. Glad we made the cut. Did the shoe shine boy make it in? I know the family a bit and he's a pretty decent kid.
-
Someone here asked to let them know when an episode of Around the Corner about Appleton was on. I forgot all about it but it was on PBS last night. But here is the link to see the episode online. http://www.milwaukeepbs.org/local-programs/programs/around-corner-john-mcgivern
-
1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises. 2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners. To my point above: Mark Attanasio hasn't put the team up for sale, so the value increase means nothing to the team's day-to-day finances. And when he sells the team, those proceeds go to Mark A., not the team, so again the day-to-day finances aren't affected. It isn't like these owners need the revenue stream to live on. They can borrow against the added value of the team to get liquid assets necessary to make the team even more valuable. Or they can use the added value of the team for other business ventures. Mark A. didn't improve the stadium just for the fans to enjoy. He did it to improve the team's value. Winning is one, if not the best, way to increase franchise value. Traditionally teams viewed investing directly on players as the best way to win more, thus improve the team's value. Today teams are realizing there are better ways to do it than free agents. Thus less spending on free agents.
-
Totally agree. I would like to see them reduce the number of options, or perhaps eliminate options after a certain age, and expand the rosters, both the 25 man and 40 man, to makeup for the loss of flexibility created by that. As it is we have guys who are in their upper 20's being forced to play in the minors when they are good enough to make a major league roster somewhere and start their arby clock before they hit their mid 30's.
-
My guess is there are multiple things going on. Other teams saw the last three world series winners did not have a top ten payroll and figured why spend if there is another way to win? Many of the big spenders are trying to get below the luxury tax line. Some I'm guessing just aren't willing to spend but also if they get down now they can go over it again next year with less cost. With the potential players hitting the market next year it's worth it to wait one year. Most of the rest of the big spenders are in rebuild mode. Anyone else willing to spend realize there isn't the usual competition for the top guys and can afford to wait them out. I think teams realized waiting until close to spring training to sign players costs less than if they sign them right away. With fewer teams fighting over the players it's a good year to do that. Finally the trend is going away from spending on starters and position players and investing more on bullpens. While relievers are getting paid well compared to the past, they are still cheaper than starters or position players.
-
While baseball shouldn't have to be nonprofit it does have an antitrust exemption no other business gets. I don't think you'll find a single owner who would prefer to do away with that exemption and operate under the same antitrust rules every other business in the nation has to follow. With that comes some amount of revenue sharing that normal businesses don't have to deal with.
-
It's always a shock to go from an old dog to the energy of a pup. This time around is even more so. I haven't had a pup under 6 months old for almost 20 years. It's also the first dog I've had in that time that wasn't house broke. Pups are cute and all but I can't wait for her to be at least 6 months old.
-
It's possible they didn't want to trade him within the division. If there are two comparable offers would you take the one where it's a team you'll play often or the other? While that is the conventional wisdom, I just don't think it matters as much as some do. When you trade a player at the start of a rebuild does it really matter if you help a team in your division for the short term? You aren't winning anyway so what does it matter? In a way it is better to trade within the division when starting a rebuild. That way you weaken a division rival's farm which should make them worse in a few years when you are ready to compete. I think the whole don't trade in your division thing is overblown in general but even more so at the start of a rebuild.
-
Brewers release Taylor Jungmann
Thurston Fluff replied to A Swing and A Drive's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
I can't believe the number of first round failures the Brewers had during that stretch. It's really stunning how little value they have been able to get out of those players. Was it a draft failure or a development failure? In nearly every year, there were players taken after the Brewers pick who went on to stardom, or at least valuable performance. That's the million dollar question. I doubt it's all one or the other but it is telling that the players who got drafted after Seid passed away did better even when the development side was the same. -
rhp erik davis minor league deal; non-roster invitee
Thurston Fluff replied to djoctagone's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
I like this signing. He's a year removed from elbow surgery with plus velocity and a change. -
I agree with your main point on just letting this thing grow organically, but I do think it's dangerous to expect further growth from someone like Knebel. If he has a season better than the one he just had and it is repeatable beyond 2018, then he can start preparing his Hall of Fame speech. Typed Kenebel but meant Hader. If Knebel did get better how amazing would that be to watch though?
-
Path C - Stearns believes the talent on the team was legitimate and thinks the youth coming up is legit as well. Thus no need to spend big. I don't see why thinking young players improving and a healthy farm can't produce a contender. I might be the only person who would be happy without a major addition this off season. Fill in around the edges for depth, maybe kick the tires on a second baseman or work a deal to clear the glut of outfielders but beyond that I liked the direction our team was heading. So why change it with costly trades or expensive big name free agents? They lost Nelson, Swarzak, and Walker and added Gallardo. If Plan C is the way he is really thinking, he is expecting a ton from the young guys coming up if the plan is to contend. Yes he is. But why shouldn't he? The whole point of developing a good farm is to use it. I just don't think Swarzak or Walker's production would be all that hard to compensate for with the normal progression one would expect out of player like Arcia, Knebel, Santana and Shaw. Nelson's loss is huge. I would not mind if they addressed that but am not all the sure he can be replaced externally better than internally. If we were just looking at 2018 I would say go get someone. Looking at the larger picture I don't think getting an expensive player-either prospect or money wise- helps us more than hurts us.
-
Path C - Stearns believes the talent on the team was legitimate and thinks the youth coming up is legit as well. Thus no need to spend big. I don't see why thinking young players improving and a healthy farm can't produce a contender. I might be the only person who would be happy without a major addition this off season. Fill in around the edges for depth, maybe kick the tires on a second baseman or work a deal to clear the glut of outfielders but beyond that I liked the direction our team was heading. So why change it with costly trades or expensive big name free agents?