tmwiese55

Generally agree. I've been a bit surprised that it seems a done deal that Mendoza is going out this year. Of course the multi year guarantee so a much larger total dollar is likely the big factor. But, what seems like more fun than what he's doing now and he's going to get at least 4-6 mil to do it? And you have a chance to be a part of one of the biggest stories in CFB history. If they lose Monday, he could come back and try to complete this rags to riches story. Even if they win, you have done that story and now can try to repeat it and repeat Heisman to make it even bigger. If they do lose, I'd think you'd really want back to complete the job. If they win, I see going out on high note though but with the transfer they got it seems decided that he's leaving. I suppose another big factor for him and others in his situation would be who you're likely to be drafted by. For him, the options don't seem great. Teams near the top who would pick a QB are Jets and Raiders. No way you want on the Jets. Raiders I guess is neutral. Maybe Cardinals would be ready to move on from Murray, another ok/neutral spot.

Of course their TV contract is ridiculous in itself, but they have to be raking in a ton of money from Japan to be able to afford all this and to keep compounding on it more and more. Great system MLB has in place that no one has any idea on what those numbers are. Along with what everyone else has said and how an actual cap seems impossible, along with more tax the other move that seems at least feasible is to pool all the TV revenue together and share it. Collectively negotiate it all together then split it, or at least like 50% of it has to go to the pool or something like that.

Exactly. There's too much acting like Cuban just bought the best players. This is mostly about coaching, training, identifying unseen talent. And perhaps its Cuban's money that allowed them to pay these coaches the extension they just got and/or the higher level QB transfer they got for this year. But if folks haven't looked into it, the first year Cignetti brought I think 17 players with him from JMU and his coaching staff from JMU, that was obviously a huge chunk of their transfer, 2 and 3 star guys from JMU. I believe 9 of them were starters, so almost half their team was just JMU. The QB last year was a MAC transfer. And then goes into the B1G and beats the crap out of everyone other than OSU. And for WI fans, they have our OL coach from when we had the dominant run team in the country. I didn't track enough after that to know how many JMU players are still left/starting on this team. But they said in the last game they had I think 8 4 star recruits vs Oregon's like 55. And obviously now the profile has been raised so much that he won't have to pull from the scraps anymore so it'll be interesting how it plays out from here. If he gets elite talent with his elite coaching and it works it could be dangerous. But there's also an element of the top top talent is more worried about their money/NFL which makes it harder to build the team aspects and get the buy in needed, so he probably has to try and balance it a bit. Side note, with his Saban connect everyone is lucky Saban didn't handpick him to be his replacement. Him taking over the system and culture Saban had in place with the talent pipeline could've been a juggernaut.

They definitely view him as a starter, after all he started what, 7 playoff games last year? Joking aside, I'd guess they keep him this year and give him a real shot to start. If he can become a starter he's great value at that contract going forward, so I think they'll want to try that first. If that fails and he ends up back in the pen this year, then I generally agree they might look to move him next offseason. I hadn't really thought of it before now, but he'd also someone that could make sense to trade to someone who is also trying to win now but has an mlb bat coming available for whatever reason. IDK for a quick example, someone like Lawler. Those situations can be hard to find because we're trying to win so don't wanna only get prospects, and the same applies in reverse.

Trout got 35+ mil per like 10 years ago. Judge got 40 mil per a year or so before. Again, I see the argument but I don't buy that he was only getting 46. Even if close, the reason it wouldn't be more is because of how much paying one person 60-70 per year hurts your ability to build a team around them. Drumroll, thus why its bs to defer it to keep the number down. The deferral route allowed him to have this high number on paper while allowing the team to win by deferring payments. Without it being allowed, it hurts their ability to build a team around him and/or he has to take a blatantly lowball deal just because thats where he wants to be and to win. Which is fine of course if thats his choice, but the deferral allowed it to be a win win. And its a perk that only the wealthiest teams can afford to risk

While I get the argument being made on the tax I think its still a loophole that should be regulated. Maybe something like only 25% of total deal can be deferred as a framework. A factor in my thinking is that I just don't think its true that Ohtani would've only got 460 mil at 46 annual if there was no deferrals. Guerrero just got 500 at 35ish mil annual. Soto got $765 at 50ish annual. Ohtani is a better hitter than both while also being a top 10 pitcher when healthy. Granted there is nuance like age, injuries, and perhaps just that Ohtani wanted to play for LAD to win titles and took less to do it. But if you'd have told me all Ohtani could get at FA was 10/460 I'd have laughed at it. A top hitter or pitcher at his skills gets 35-40 per year, he's two of them. So that's where you get to 70 mil annually, then he basically said "yea but I wanna win, so pay me later so we can win now". Without that perk they'd have to pay him at least over 60 mil per year or he'd have had to just straight up do a discount to help the owners/team

Another general problem is there isn't enough western teams. One of the midwest groups would have to be in the West. Plus TX teams and KC are in CST. But, yea it probably would still help travel. And with more balanced schedule now its not like those teams would be almost always playing western times when on the road. Like if in the past all their games were their division and rest were in their same league (which in this would be massively western skewed).

I was surprised to see their likely starting RF go in this deal. So, is their plan to play Suzuki in RF full time then? I thought he's expected to be quite bad if not terrible in the OF. Seems an odd choice but I'll take it. That said, I generally like the P they got so not exactly bashing it, but giving up 6-7 years of control guy who seems ready to be a starter in the OF is something I'm ok with

I'm guessing the hiccup for Bader is he's looking to lock in at least 3 years at that yearly value. Teams are balking at that, as I'm sure MKE would. But yea, on a one year I'm happy with him and he seems like a great fit for the clubhouse too. Have to commit to two years and it gets trickier, but I think could still be done. MKE is likely clearing at least Freddy/Woodruff's 30 mil off after next year. Along with some other possible increasing guys nearing end of their control

Anybody do any digging on Austin Hays and have much of an opinion on him? Seems in our price range, RH, hits lefties well I think, no long term commitment. Not awesome or having much experience with needles, but would seem to raise the floor of OF and reduce the need to rely on the guys who are better suited as 4th OFs. Quick glance seems he'd have to be LF so one of Chourio/Frelick becomes primary CF.

Well its not 1 year. Its every year they have players like that. 2-3 years back they had former brewers greats Manny Pina and Jesus Aguilar in that same area. Add fact with that last year they clearly started trying to win again after the few years of tanking for the move and I'd have no reason to think couple hundred K would be a deal breaker. Whereas you have the opinion and what seems like an overreaction to the OAK cheap reputation that since a team is cheap it means they literally never spend any money. In spite of course rules that say they have to spend the money and the fact that even them being cheap they still spend 70-80 million per year, in which a couple hundred grand is nothing (thus why every year they have guys like this that are a bit over min). In general, spending on guys like this is still being cheap in that you're spending 1-2 mil on a guy who likely isn't going to be any good rather than 8-10 mil on someone more reliable (who also likely demands multi year commitment). But yea, you can have the opinion that OAK will never spend above league min, thats fine. And yea I do think they'd rather grab a guy from us who hasn't debuted yet just like you rather than someone with Mitchell's injuries, general mediocreness, and less years of control

Because them liking the player (mitchell) is part of that deal. The point was like everything else about the deal besides Mitchell being a few hundred K than league min.

OK. I don't think the extra few hundred grand would matter if they liked everything else about the deal and if they generally think Mitchell is someone they'd be willing to take a flyer on. I'd support that by the fact OAK paid guys like Urias, Andujar, Urshela, Seth Brown right in that same ballpark or more last year. I'd be confident that if they liked everything else about the trade, the fact he makes a few hundred K more than the alternative isn't much of a factor. If you do, so be it. Couple hundred K though when you have to fill the roster spot anyway, I just don't think matters if everything else checks out. If they just don't like Mitchell for all the other reasons we all can see, that's a whole different discussion. And if they don't like the overall trade value for everyone involved is a different discussion. If he was say another year into Arb so his number is more in the 5 mil ballpark, different discussion. As the OP said, the trade was about everything else. He was looking at Mitchell as a sweetener to try and put it over the top, if they'd prefer a non injured, younger guy with more years of control then they can pick someone else.

I'd probably just have him play out the contract next year, assuming there isn't an all out collapse to finish the year. I know that's not the norm, but what's he gonna do.

Sure, I get the logic on Kwan and how much he fits and makes sense. But, man doesn't he feel a bit redundant with what so many of our other guys do? I'd like to actually address the power issue if a move of significance were to happen. He also fell off very hard to end last season.

Where was there any condescension? I legit asked if you read it because you were comparing Mitchell directly to Soderstrum, and that is not the deal.. Think you might want to look in the mirror and reread both posts and ask yourself which one was condescending. You are arguing a whole different thing now regarding trade value. Go ahead and have that discussion if you want. I actually made posts more or less agreeing with what you said here, that we'd have to pay more so we probably won't do it. The point of this discussion was that Mitchell's money won't matter, that's it. If we want to talk about relax I'd again so to again look in the mirror and get a feel for the tone of this board. It is not this argumentative/attack style you're coming in hot with trying to pick a fight with people

Did you read the proposal? Its not Mitchell straight up for Soderstrom. Mitchell is just a toss in flyer who can play at MLB at this point. The point is merely that the money this year has nothing to do with it. If OAK wouldn't want him its because of the injuries and/or that he doesn't have as many years of control left, so they'd choose someone else

Yea but the guy you're talking about here will make barely above league min. Money wouldn't be an issue on Mitchell, it would be if they'd rather take a flyer on a different young guy than him due to the injuries, along with he has less team control than someone who hasn't debuted yet.

As said, OAK has been at least trying to compete lately so I don't see them looking to move this guy. But yea, he does seem the type who would be worth ponying up significant prospects. Position and skill they need, while being young and controlled. Would all depend on their prospect demand and I'd guess it would be such an overpay that MKE says No

Funny, they just had this discussion MLB network, almost as if pulled from this site. Matt Vasgersian pointing this one out.

I'd like to find a way to add him without giving up Freddy. But, just adding to the scenario discussed here and comments along the line of 1 year of Freddy for them in terms of trade value. While of course yes that is technically true, If Bos were to make such a trade they would be factoring in planning on signing Freddy long term so getting him now allows them to get that done easier with exclusive rights. They kind of just did the same thing with Crochet. Will they do it again? IDK. Just saying that would likely be a part of the equation as to the "we're trading for Freddy for 1 year".

Good deal for Jansen. If Contreras is again going to insist on playing virtually every day I'm perfectly fine spending league min on a catcher. Someone like Haase is adequate imo, but hey if there's a younger guy out there I'm all for it. Not like I'm saying Haase is awesome, but he knows the guys/pitchers/culture and has had his moments. Usually found a way to get on base or do something positive whenever he started. Basically if you're only playing 3 times a month why spend money on it. If Contreras gets hurt then yea you'd have to trade for a notch better or roll with the hotshot prospect.

I get the logic and all that and who can't think Collins would come back to earth a bit. Still, he's a guy I'd have preferred to keep for depth since he's controlled for 4-5 more years for nothing, plus has at least some IF capabilities in a pinch. I like everything I see about Zerpa, fairly confident he's going to be a great contributor. But also surprised they had to give up Collins to do it. And for OF going forward, I'd say they are fine with "Depth". But, they are still missing a starter. For your 4-6th OFers Mitchell/Badoo/Perkins are perfectly good guys to have since we all know injuries will happen. They are cheap, play great D so they won't kill you. And while not good enough hitters to be a starter, for 2-3 weeks they're not godawful enough to kill you either. Hoping there is something coming for an actual starter and they're not once again hoping Mitchell can stay healthy.

Yea didn't mean it as a blame. Just the luck of it all. They could've called countless plays on that 1st down, the one they happen to choose ended with this timeline. There's multiple other timelines that lead to them winning that game and possibly the SB. Once the play is called, throwing it up one on one seemed fine, though I don't recall seeing a wider view on other receivers to really know much. But one on one there was probably the right choice of where to go with the ball, even if you'd just done it and it was best CB.

Think of the butterfly effect of choosing or calling the play to throw that bomb to Watson. You had just thrown one last possession, but decided to come back and try it again. If they don't do that, it changes the whole course of the season. There's a timeline where if they just do a basic run play that GB wins the Super Bowl. Instead, the season is as good as over and other teams SB odds are drastically increased