tmwiese55

Good info, yea I'm not expert. So the timeline on that is late 80s/early 90s since Tampa started in 92. Pushing 30 years ago by now and now in the post financial boom of sports and I don't think it's been seriously revisited since to my memory while NHL has added teams and several have moved. Makes you wonder what would've happened, maybe NHL sticks and Bucks leave. Both succeed, how it affects the Brewers. Who knows.

I guess I'm in the camp that only a 2 year commitment at 9.5ish per year is very low risk so I likely would've matched that and had Pina has a great backup. That said, he's a human with personal preference and this isn't a video game so might have needed more to play in MKE. But 2/20 with some team options for year 3 seems ok to me, plus not having to trade any assets or give up picks. That said, I'm likely much lower on Kratz than many here and definitely than management is plus I don't know their financial constraints so they might have this money earmarked for a 2B/IF and can't afford both, I see that too.

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who's shared in here, good conversation. I don't have much to contribute as I'm in the fairly early stages of it all, but good insight from many to read along on and think about.

IDK, this line of argument isn't quite right especially in such a condescending tone. They're paid for the year like any base salary. Just so happens you don't haaaaave to work for several weeks in a row. I know many do summer school and other stuff to supplement. It's really just a semantics thing and no reason to call anyone ignorant over it. Take X amount of money and pay it over 12 months or over 10 months, doesn't matter. You're paid the same. One could just as easily argue back that due to that long stretch of time off it allows to add other income whereas one who doesn't have that long stretch off can't. It isn't semantics at all. The summer months are not paid, not contracted. The general public often thinks that teachers complain about their pay, but get all that time off. It just isn't the case. Unpaid days such as spring breaks, Christmas vacations, and summer days are not included in our base salary. They are unpaid days. I really don't know what you're arguing. We all know exactly what you mean and I don't know how saying you're not paid for the summers helps your side of the argument, if anything it opens it up to the other side to say "see, work something else in the summer to get more money" (which I generally disagree with, this is long hours with tons of BS through the year so the several weeks off is needed imo). It is not ignorant at all as someone else said. Your paid X amount of to work that school year, call it what you will. It doesn't matter either way. That's what I mean by semantics: paid summer or not paid summer, it doesn't matter your paid X amount for the school year. I don't recall if teachers have the choice to spread it out over 26 two week pay periods or to have it begin in Sept and end in June, but again it doesn't matter because your paid X amount for the school year. ETA: That said, I see why you felt the need to fire back a bit after the other comments by some. That kind of epitomizes the whole problem on this topic really.

IDK, this line of argument isn't quite right especially in such a condescending tone. They're paid for the year like any base salary. Just so happens you don't haaaaave to work for several weeks in a row. I know many do summer school and other stuff to supplement. It's really just a semantics thing and no reason to call anyone ignorant over it. Take X amount of money and pay it over 12 months or over 10 months, doesn't matter. You're paid the same. One could just as easily argue back that due to that long stretch of time off it allows to add other income whereas one who doesn't have that long stretch off can't.

FWIW Badger hockey attendance is majorly still struggling this year. I think they used sell outdraw some NHL teams but fans still haven't come back after those couple really bad years. And it's super cheap to go to UW games. It's like $200 total dollars for Friday night seats for the whole season. Obviously MKE is a much larger city but just thought I'd mention it. I think the NHL is very skeptical on whether MKE can support another major franchise or it would've happened already. Plus, there may be some politics going on with the Blackhawks having rights to the market or something like that, you hear that in other sports.

Generally speaking I'd summarize WI situation along these lines. Things were a touch out of hand prior to the Walker crack down on all this stuff in regards to pay, benefits, pensions, insurance, etc. Such as, my high school gym teacher was making above 90K. And before all this there was an abundance of teachers with lots applying for every job where fresh grads had no chance of getting hired. So, capitalist logic would say well if you have an oversupply you don't need to pay more. But not surprisingly it seems it's been overcorrected and now the pendulum has swung the other direction. Now, lets hope as it gets fixed again that they found a good middle ground instead of overdoing it the other way instead of continuing this fight for another 12 years. That's ignoring all the other valid issues brought up here and how the government is micromanaging how to teach, focusing only on the pay/benefits aspects.

From what I understand the UW option here was really there. Academics and other unrelated football issues. Recruiting nerds said things like surprised UW offered and/or questioned whether the offer was real.

With the Bay area tweet out there. I looked and not surprisingly he's from Santa Clara. Yea, he's going to the As or Giants since money doesn't matter.

Lots or rumors in Vegas that the Rio is going to be destroyed an MLB stadium built there too. Seems a lot of smoke on this one too

If ever a team needed Coach Cooper... Seems like the new coach came from Cooper Coaching Academy. Not going well so far, but he's all about the long term. He'll weed out the attitude problems and have them playing solid fundamental bball before you know it, four passes every possession before a shot.

I'd say the biggest thing to note here is that even the last couple years when he has played he hasn't hit well. Yea for league min I guess I'd rather have him than Saladino but can't really bank on anything here. Could be a good platoon partner with Shaw and insurance everywhere else on the IF.

And they came out and actually said they'd bank the savings the last few years for this purpose. I was very surprised to hear them say it, seems like if they weren't going to do it then it would've made sense to just keep their mouth shut rather than open themselves up for criticism. Tack on the new TV deal coming and yea I could see how they can justify above 110ish. Maybe 150 is pushing but there could be flex. That said, I think they have to find something they deem as really worth it and a safe bet (such as how they viewed Cain, though I'm still worried about those last couple years) as opposed to on an older reliever needing multiple years or a C who could so easily get hurt. I guess a legit top level SP as the obvious example but I'm sure other situations could arise. Say, a one year gamble on Donaldson when he was available, something like that.

Braun's deal doesn't look so bad next to McCutchen's... granted worse D and more injury prone but still.

I had Kimbrel in fantasy last year and my boss is a huge Sox fan from Boston and overall baseball nerd so I paid attention. Kimbrel was really shaky in the second half last year. Probably would want to dig deep in his numbers to see how much of a trend it might be. That said, I think he would be another who could go more than 1 inning when needed. Still, have to really worry about a multi year commitment for big money with him. Can't imagine we can fit him in our budget unless the market is down on him due to that second half and he wants a 1 year deal to prove it again

Good, that was just someone's post in this thread. Yea, that seems about right though and no way i'd go past that with our budget. Like I mentioned, tough with our yearly right now but at least it's palatable for the risk with catchers.

No way I'd want to commit anything like 5/75 to a catcher like Grandal, really tough for any non super elite guy like your Posey types due to physical strains of catching and how much people fall off. Just can't see MKE being able to handle that kind of contract, something for 2-3 years is different but even that yearly will be tough here. I'd really be curious on what it will cost on Ramos, should be much less and thus less risk.

That was by all accounts a home run trade. now, how what they do with the new found flexibility and space remains to be seen. But this move itself was as about as good of a trade one could expect in their situation.

Exactly, the risk of injury or a bad first half is there whereas Luc was coming off a down year so a chance to re-prove himself could help his value. Not sure JT's could be higher than it is now and with every team that fills their C need it goes down a smidge.

Yup, I said that in there. Of course someone could cave. His point was imply that at this point MIA has been asking for these type of top tier prospects and so far everyone has said No. so while there is a chance someone could cave, there is also a good chance that top tier guy won't go. The talk that Brinson wasn't available for one guy but was for another is irrelevant to the whole point. Well, for Quintana they started their tear down that year and traded him at that deadline. Miami has been sitting on him for a year, they should probably pull the trigger this offseason but who knows maybe they'll hold out if no one gives these top guys and see what happens. But yea the Quintana scenario is a comparable situation to a degree as they likely held out until someone caved with a top guy. What didn't matter was the person saying that if Brinson wasn't available for Quintana but he was for Yelich shows something. It was for different players and positions with different contracts.

Good points by long ball, there are so many options that there probably isn't much harm in waiting it out. Murphy would fit in the scenario I said, but that's a hurdle to find someone to take Thames salary. Moreover, it's probably more ideal to find someone who can also play 3B more than 1B. Buuuut, Murphy is the exact type of hitter they need.

I think he'd fit great assuming we could move Thames and his salary. Presumably the same ballpark yearly cost or a bit more but a much better hitter and positional flex to cover a lot of 2B for this year while being insurance for Jesus. Way more roster flexibility. If you still have Thames though it makes it tough on the roster though.

That's all irrelevant to the point Stone was making though, you missed the point. He was saying that if a team was going to give up a Huira type prospect for Realmuto they likely would have done so already since he's been available for a year already. Sure, maybe someone could get desperate and cave, but it's logical to assume everyone has balked on that so far. he wasn't saying that said top level prospects wouldn't be used for other players.

Yup, like I said earlier. If they'd simply beat AZ they wouldn't really be in a bad position at all. Pretty much everything broke their way this week.

Yea very fair to assume that Oak would still totally expect GB to finish higher than Chi even with Mack. Heck, all of us here did and every oddsmaker did. Packers still had Rodgers and the Bears basically a rookie QB who didn't look good last year.